Cause & effect
The liberal media are trying to give conservatives a bad image. This is unfair but typical of the left.
Liberals think of life in absolutes — good or bad with nothing between the two. Most conservatives realize life is rarely that simple.
No current gun control laws could have prevented the Newtown, Conn., shooting. It was a tragedy. Conservatives grieve the deaths as much as liberals but two wrongs don't make a right. Stricter laws will not prevent another Newtown. They will only infringe upon our Second Amendment rights.
The Panama Canal was completed, in part, because the pesticide DDT killed the malaria-carrying mosquitoes spreading the disease among workers. But DDT hurt the animals and environment, so it was banned. Now millions of people around the world die from malaria. How much are their lives worth?
Our air and water are cleaner now but many jobs in West Virginia and Pennsylvania were lost. That is the cost of a cleaner environment. What do we do about them?
In the 1960s, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act to try to combat discrimination against blacks. Now people complain about reverse discrimination. Have we solved the problem or have we created more racists, blacks and whites?
Charity used to be distributed by community groups and churches. These local groups knew who really needed help and who was just lazy. Then, our government started welfare and Social Security. Later came the Great Society, including Medicare and Medicaid.
Now, half of the country is on the government teat while the other half pay the bill. We have trillion-dollar budget deficits. We no longer can afford the modern version of charity.
Liberals may have good intentions but they fail to see the long-term effects of their actions. Conservatives take the time to study the consequences of their actions before they act. It is a saner approach.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Let water, jobs flow
- Don’t define by skin color
- An outrageous (& liberal) view of abortion
- Brown & Wilson
- Pols’ real interest
- Majority defied