# Why do people hate Liberals?



## Saigon

The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals. 

The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are. 

I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.

Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use. 

Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all. 

And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras? 

The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way. 

If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Their economic theory's are destructive.


----------



## Truthseeker420

I don't want to get into detail because then I would be accused of being hateful toward cons. But while liberals view the world with shades of gray, conservatives view the world as black vs white,us vs them,good vs evil.


----------



## Old Rocks

Now Mathew, you really think that the economic theories that resulted in the First Great Republican Depression were not destructive? And that the deconstruction of the regulations that were put into place because of that Depression, leading up to October, 2008, and a very near brush with the Second Great Republican Depression, were not destuctive?


----------



## Saigon

Matthew said:


> Their economic theory's are destructive.



I don't see there is any evidence of that at a theoertical level. 

Some of the world's most succesful governments have been liberal. 

In fact, I think you'd struggle to mount a case that conservatives have a better economi record in government that liberals. In any country.


----------



## Saigon

Truthseeker420 said:


> I don't want to get into detail because then I would be accused of being hateful toward cons. But while liberals view the world with shades of gray, conservatives view the world as black vs white,us vs them,good vs evil.



The weird thing is - there seems to be some truth in that. 

I just don't see a lot of more left wing posters going on about "typical conservative mindset" or claiming "conservatives are so stupid". 

I'm glad we don't see that, but still...


----------



## Old Rocks

A liberal is willing to recognize that there are many areas in life where there is neither right nor wrong, just a range of choices, choices which will not solve the whole of the problems, and are not good or bad, but more effective or less effective. This does not set well with conservatives, who prefer definate right and wrong.

Also, liberals accept reality far better than conservatives. They do not try to bend the real world into "the way things ought to be". That is why 'Conservatives' deny the science of AGW, in spite of all the evidence of a warming world around them, and the solid science behind the reason why. And when a major poltical party embraces this lack of recognition of reality, as the GOP has, there is no way that I can vote for them.


----------



## syrenn

Old Rocks said:


> A liberal is willing to recognize that there are many areas in life where there is neither right nor wrong, just a range of choices, choices which will not solve the whole of the problems, and are not good or bad, but more effective or less effective. This does not set well with conservatives, who prefer definate right and wrong.
> 
> Also, liberals accept reality far better than conservatives. They do not try to bend the real world into "the way things ought to be". That is why 'Conservatives' deny the science of AGW, in spite of all the evidence of a warming world around them, and the solid science behind the reason why. And when a major poltical party embraces this lack of recognition of reality, as the GOP has, there is no way that I can vote for them.




Surely you jest. 

Liberals are just as black and white, right and wrong on issues as cons are. Dont kid yourself into thinking that liberals are any more or less flexible.


----------



## Avatar4321

I don't hate liberals. BTW they are progressives. They just stole the liberal moniker when people realized how nuts progressives were. 

I just want them to stop taking my money and interfering in my life. That's all.


----------



## Old Rocks

syrenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> A liberal is willing to recognize that there are many areas in life where there is neither right nor wrong, just a range of choices, choices which will not solve the whole of the problems, and are not good or bad, but more effective or less effective. This does not set well with conservatives, who prefer definate right and wrong.
> 
> Also, liberals accept reality far better than conservatives. They do not try to bend the real world into "the way things ought to be". That is why 'Conservatives' deny the science of AGW, in spite of all the evidence of a warming world around them, and the solid science behind the reason why. And when a major poltical party embraces this lack of recognition of reality, as the GOP has, there is no way that I can vote for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you jest.
> 
> Liberals are just as black and white, right and wrong on issues as cons are. Dont kid yourself into thinking that liberals are any more or less flexible.
Click to expand...


I am judging from what I have seen in nearly 70 years of life.


----------



## syrenn

Saigon said:


> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.





no, not hate......




but if you want a good reason to mock rabid liberals....i give you liesmaters. The facts lay withing the link 



http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=5673362


----------



## syrenn

Old Rocks said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> A liberal is willing to recognize that there are many areas in life where there is neither right nor wrong, just a range of choices, choices which will not solve the whole of the problems, and are not good or bad, but more effective or less effective. This does not set well with conservatives, who prefer definate right and wrong.
> 
> Also, liberals accept reality far better than conservatives. They do not try to bend the real world into "the way things ought to be". That is why 'Conservatives' deny the science of AGW, in spite of all the evidence of a warming world around them, and the solid science behind the reason why. And when a major poltical party embraces this lack of recognition of reality, as the GOP has, there is no way that I can vote for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you jest.
> 
> Liberals are just as black and white, right and wrong on issues as cons are. Dont kid yourself into thinking that liberals are any more or less flexible.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am judging from what I have seen in nearly 70 years of life.
Click to expand...



then you dont get out much.


----------



## FlexibleEnergy

And also the extraordinary steps used to make such things happen.
the holy grail of progressivism,visit marxist.org: The Leading Marxist Site on the Net


----------



## Old Rocks

syrenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, not hate......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but if you want a good reason to mock rabid liberals....i give you liesmaters. The facts lay withing the link
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=5673362
Click to expand...


If you wish to mock the far left, one can easily find equal reason to mock the far right. In fact, at the moment, the far right is making very public statements leading to mockery from all sides of the political spectrum. 

But have no fear, another year, and it will be the far lefts turn to be in the public eye. 

In the meantime, concerning this election cycle, I do not want to see another repeat of the October, 2008 debacle, or worse. So I will vote Dem, until such time as the GOP wakes up to reality.


----------



## brawny1

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals to wards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



You must be brain dead! I'm new here and I swear most the bashing is toward conservatives.
The fact is, liberalism is a parasitic culture that wants to feed off the success of others.
Hard working industrialist that built this country, developed this country, made it the success it is today, God fearing folks. Our founding fathers knew this and defined a constitution to guide us. We're just trying to preserve the Liberties and Freedom this affords.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



"Liberals" are NOT liberals........ They're fascist authoritarians, and in some cases totalitarian...

Anyone who advocates bigger government and loyalty to government is absolutely not liberal...

Real classical liberals founded this country in response to authoritarian, totalitarian and theocratic governments across the pond..... 

Now the same mess is being created here by the so called "liberals."

I hate progressives because they're my antithesis.....They're a bunch of envious fucks who want government to take care of them via STEALING from anyone who has more then them.

How the fuck can one be liberal and look to government to provide for them???


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> Now Mathew, you really think that the economic theories that resulted in the First Great Republican Depression were not destructive? And that the deconstruction of the regulations that were put into place because of that Depression, leading up to October, 2008, and a very near brush with the Second Great Republican Depression, were not destuctive?




The Federal Reserve caused the panic of 1929, and then Roosevelt's economic policies extended a sharp but short recession into a depression.  Pretty much the same thing happened in 2008.  Only morons blame low taxes and deregulation for the depression.


----------



## Godboy

Old Rocks said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, not hate......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but if you want a good reason to mock rabid liberals....i give you liesmaters. The facts lay withing the link
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=5673362
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you wish to mock the far left, one can easily find equal reason to mock the far right. In fact, at the moment, the far right is making very public statements leading to mockery from all sides of the political spectrum.
> 
> But have no fear, another year, and it will be the far lefts turn to be in the public eye.
> 
> In the meantime, concerning this election cycle, I do not want to see another repeat of the October, 2008 debacle, or worse. So I will vote Dem, until such time as the GOP wakes up to reality.
Click to expand...


If you're voting for Obama, it's YOU that needs to wake up. Have you been paying attention to his economic plans that consistently fail? Spending a gazillion dollars is no way to economic recovery, which should be apparent by now.


----------



## syrenn

Old Rocks said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, not hate......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but if you want a good reason to mock rabid liberals....i give you liesmaters. The facts lay withing the link
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=5673362
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> If you wish to mock the far left, one can easily find equal reason to mock the far right. *In fact, at the moment, the far right is making very public statements leading to mockery from all sides of the political spectrum.
> 
> But have no fear, another year, and it will be the far lefts turn to be in the public eye.
> 
> In the meantime, concerning this election cycle, I do not want to see another repeat of the October, 2008 debacle, or worse. So I will vote Dem, until such time as the GOP wakes up to reality.
Click to expand...




Bingo! 


Thank you for making my point!  I also guess you missed the word..... rabid before the word liberal.

Again.... the left is no more _or less_ flexible as the right.


----------



## zonly1

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Must draw you a map, rookie.  Let me know when you have trouble.  I believe in freedom from a business sense.  Let's focus on freedom and business.  Business determines boundarys of product.  YOu are okay with your purchasing power sinking every day buying export products.

WE are born out of the womb, FREE.  When the state/goverment wants to facilitate rules of tax collections per working class with 176,000 of hollow point 40 cal a hinded tent of hindering true entent.


----------



## Old Rocks

Oh my, Nicky baby is foaming at the mouth again.


----------



## bripat9643

Saigon said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their economic theory's are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see there is any evidence of that at a theoertical level.
Click to expand...


Of course you don't.  You're a liberal.



Saigon said:


> Some of the world's most succesful governments have been liberal.



Horseshit.



Saigon said:


> In fact, I think you'd struggle to mount a case that conservatives have a better economi record in government that liberals. In any country.



Not a bit.


----------



## bripat9643

I think one fact we can all agree on is that liberals are all giant gas bags.  Almost everything they believe is horseshit, especially when it comes to what they believe about themselves.




Old Rocks said:


> A liberal is willing to recognize that there are many areas in life where there is neither right nor wrong, just a range of choices, choices which will not solve the whole of the problems, and are not good or bad, but more effective or less effective. This does not set well with conservatives, who prefer definate right and wrong.
> 
> Also, liberals accept reality far better than conservatives. They do not try to bend the real world into "the way things ought to be". That is why 'Conservatives' deny the science of AGW, in spite of all the evidence of a warming world around them, and the solid science behind the reason why. And when a major poltical party embraces this lack of recognition of reality, as the GOP has, there is no way that I can vote for them.


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> I am judging from what I have seen in nearly 70 years of life.



70 year old morons are just as stupid as 30 year old morons.


----------



## Old Rocks

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now Mathew, you really think that the economic theories that resulted in the First Great Republican Depression were not destructive? And that the deconstruction of the regulations that were put into place because of that Depression, leading up to October, 2008, and a very near brush with the Second Great Republican Depression, were not destuctive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve caused the panic of 1929, and then Roosevelt's economic policies extended a sharp but short recession into a depression.  Pretty much the same thing happened in 2008.  Only morons blame low taxes and deregulation for the depression.
Click to expand...


Now Pattycake, as much as you would like to rewrite history, you cannot. FDR is considered on the Great Presidents. As is Lincoln. And the Confederacy lost the Civil War and is just another sad chapter in man's attempt to justify the unjustifiable.


----------



## Saigon

FlexibleEnergy said:


> And also the extraordinary steps used to make such things happen.
> the holy grail of progressivism,visit marxist.org: The Leading Marxist Site on the Net



Marxism is not Liberalism, any more so than Fascism is Conservatism.


----------



## Old Rocks

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am judging from what I have seen in nearly 70 years of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 70 year old morons are just as stupid as 30 year old morons.
Click to expand...


LOL. Now Pattycake is foaming at the mouth.


----------



## Saigon

bripat9643 said:


> I think one fact we can all agree on is that liberals are all giant gas bags.  Almost everything they believe is horseshit, especially when it comes to what they believe about themselves.



It is really hard for me to believe that any adult believes this.


----------



## Saigon

brawny1 said:


> The fact is, liberalism is a parasitic culture that wants to feed off the success of others.
> .



That is not a fact. 

Nor is it even a particularly credible theory. 

It's just exactly the kind of sweeping generalisation that to me bears no contact with reality.


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> Now Pattycake, as much as you would like to rewrite history, you cannot. FDR is considered on the Great Presidents. As is Lincoln. And the Confederacy lost the Civil War and is just another sad chapter in man's attempt to justify the unjustifiable.




Most history is bullshit written by the victors or by the omnipotent state.  The propaganda of today will become the history of tomorrow, and morons like you will be telling people they are stupid if they don't believe it.


----------



## Saigon

syrenn said:


> Liberals are just as black and white, right and wrong on issues as cons are. Dont kid yourself into thinking that liberals are any more or less flexible.
> [/COLOR]



In everyday life I agree with you - but I think it's clear that on THIS board, there is far more abuse and wild generalisations made by conservatives about liberals than the other way around. 

I'd say it is a ration of about 10:1.


----------



## bripat9643

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think one fact we can all agree on is that liberals are all giant gas bags.  Almost everything they believe is horseshit, especially when it comes to what they believe about themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is really hard for me to believe that any adult believes this.
Click to expand...


That's because you're a liberal.


----------



## Saigon

FlexibleEnergy said:


> We see through the hypocrisy and mindcontrolling nanipulative pile of leftist garbage for what it is and the fact of the architects being the only beneficiary of such socialist politics.



Who is talking about socialism?

This thread is about liberals.


----------



## Saigon

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think one fact we can all agree on is that liberals are all giant gas bags.  Almost everything they believe is horseshit, especially when it comes to what they believe about themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is really hard for me to believe that any adult believes this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because you're a liberal.
Click to expand...


Actually, no, I'm not. 

I have voted for 4 different parties in the past 4 elections, and have never in my life called myself a liberal. 

It's just the usual catch-all abuse that I am talking about, really. It's like any cliche will do, as long as it is in some way negative.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Old Rocks said:


> Oh my, Nicky baby is foaming at the mouth again.



Got anything other than an insult to contradict my assertion???

No you don't....

One liners and playground insults just make you look stupid...


----------



## syrenn

Saigon said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals are just as black and white, right and wrong on issues as cons are. Dont kid yourself into thinking that liberals are any more or less flexible.
> [/COLOR]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In everyday life I agree with you - but I think it's clear that on THIS board, there is far more abuse and wild generalisations made by conservatives about liberals than the other way around.
> 
> I'd say it is a ration of about 10:1.
Click to expand...



May 2012 is your join date..... just saying. 


As with everything the board swings... when i joined it was the other way round. So who is making wild generalizations? 

If you are asking in particular about why liberals are hated _on this board._... again...ill give you liesmatters as a start as basis of foundation...... 

Make no mistake... there are rabid hacks on both sides here on this site.


----------



## Saigon

Syrenn - 

One of my strongest impressions on arriving here was the incredible amount of abuse and oneliners thrown around about liberalism as a concept. 

Of course, things may have been different in earlier times, and may change again. 

I totally agree left wing posters fall into the same cliched traps, but all I can say is that since I have been here, my impression is that it is conservatives who are far, far more likely to get into the most childish level of 'marxist-this' and 'socialist-that'.


----------



## syrenn

Saigon said:


> Syrenn -
> 
> One of my strongest impressions on arriving here was the incredible amount of abuse and oneliners thrown around about liberalism as a concept.
> 
> Of course, things may have been different in earlier times, and may change again.
> 
> I totally agree left wing posters fall into the same cliched traps, but all I can say is that since I have been here, my impression is that it is conservatives who are far, far more likely to get into the most childish level of 'marxist-this' and 'socialist-that'.





Then you need to look a bit harder for the liberal hacks and the antics they get up to.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Saigon said:


> Syrenn -
> 
> One of my strongest impressions on arriving here was the incredible amount of abuse and oneliners thrown around about liberalism as a concept.
> 
> Of course, things may have been different in earlier times, and may change again.
> 
> I totally agree left wing posters fall into the same cliched traps, but all I can say is that since I have been here, my impression is that it is conservatives who are far, far more likely to get into the most childish level of 'marxist-this' and 'socialist-that'.



Misconceptions about liberalism?

I suppose I can agree with that considering most will use the word "liberal" to describe a bunch of fascists...


----------



## Saigon

Mr.Nick said:


> I suppose I can agree with that considering most will use the word "liberal" to describe a bunch of fascists...



What are you talking about?

It is this kind of cliche-a-go-go posting that drives me nuts!

Is no post complete unless it has the words 'Marxist' 'Leftist' or 'Fascist' in it - and ideally used wrongly?


----------



## syrenn

Saigon said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose I can agree with that considering most will use the word "liberal" to describe a bunch of fascists...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> It is this kind of cliche-a-go-go posting that drives me nuts!
> 
> Is no post complete unless it has the words 'Marxist' 'Leftist' or 'Fascist' in it - and ideally used wrongly?
Click to expand...



Have i used any of those words? 

Again.... your sweeping generalizations..... just saying.


----------



## Old Rocks

Well, Syren, Saigon is not using those words, you are not using those words. But there are some others that are. And how many 'liberals' in this thread have used those words?


----------



## zonly1

Old Rocks said:


> Oh my, Nicky baby is foaming at the mouth again.



shut the FUCK UP, moron. Keynesian econ never works and until then it's a fat goose egg idiot.


----------



## zonly1

Saigon said:


> FlexibleEnergy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see through the hypocrisy and mindcontrolling nanipulative pile of leftist garbage for what it is and the fact of the architects being the only beneficiary of such socialist politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is talking about socialism?
> 
> This thread is about liberals.
Click to expand...


IT's the same equation idiot.


----------



## Saigon

One thing that I have noticed is that I think we have quite a large number of posters here who genuinely think:

a) There are only two political schools of thought - conservative and liberal

b) Liberalism = socialism = marxism = The Greens = leftism = communism = Democrats

(but not necessarily fascism = rightism = conservatism = nationalism = Tea Party = NeoCons, oddly enough)

No one who falls into either of these categories can ever understand politics, and can never play much of a role on a forum except to spew cliches.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Saigon said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose I can agree with that considering most will use the word "liberal" to describe a bunch of fascists...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> It is this kind of cliche-a-go-go posting that drives me nuts!
> 
> Is no post complete unless it has the words 'Marxist' 'Leftist' or 'Fascist' in it - and ideally used wrongly?
Click to expand...


Problem is progressives are just too stupid to understand where they fall....

It's almost like: "no we don't believe in global warming - we believe in climate change" - "progressive" and "socialist" are interchangeable.

"No we're not socialists we're progressive."


----------



## Saigon

zonly1 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FlexibleEnergy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see through the hypocrisy and mindcontrolling nanipulative pile of leftist garbage for what it is and the fact of the architects being the only beneficiary of such socialist politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is talking about socialism?
> 
> This thread is about liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IT's the same equation idiot.
Click to expand...


No, it isn't. Idiot. 

If you really think Socialism and Liberalism are the same "equation", you have just proven everything left wing posters may accuse conservatives of on this thread.


----------



## syrenn

Old Rocks said:


> Well, Syren, Saigon is not using those words, you are not using those words. But there are some others that are. And how many 'liberals' in this thread have used those words?




I did not say he was using them...nor did i say you were.... but saigon _implies _that everyone not a liberal uses them and that no none liberal post is complete without them. 


The door swings both ways.


----------



## Saigon

Mr.Nick said:


> "progressive" and "socialist" are interchangeable.



Jesus wept....you couldn't make this stuff up.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Not only are progressives socialists they're communists...

They want dictated outcomes dictated by the US government....

They'll claim they don't but they do.


----------



## zonly1

Saigon said:


> One thing that I have noticed is that I think we have quite a large number of posters here who genuinely think:
> 
> a) There are only two political schools of thought - conservative and liberal
> 
> b) Liberalism = socialism = marxism = The Greens = leftism = communism = Democrats
> 
> (but not necessarily fascism = rightism = conservatism = nationalism = Tea Party = NeoCons, oddly enough)
> 
> No one who falls into either of these categories can ever understand politics, and can never play much of a role on a forum except to spew cliches.


You ask a question and I pond u on it and then you open how ignet(per al sharptongue) you really are.  
THanks for playing and next time, put a quarter in the machine.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Saigon said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> "progressive" and "socialist" are interchangeable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus wept....you couldn't make this stuff up.
Click to expand...


Then what are you progressing to and why do you love government?


----------



## Saigon

syrenn said:


> .... but saigon _implies _that everyone not a liberal uses them and that no none liberal post is complete without them.
> ]



No, not at all - we have some very intelligent conservative posters on this board who understand politics extremely well. 

I am in no way insulting conservatives or conservatism. 

What I am insulting is ignorance. And unfortuantely, the kind of people who post the "socialism = liberal" cliches we see in two posts on this page alone are here in greater numbers on the right than left, IMHO.


----------



## zonly1

Saigon said:


> zonly1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is talking about socialism?
> 
> This thread is about liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT's the same equation idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. Idiot.
> 
> If you really think Socialism and Liberalism are the same "equation", you have just proven everything left wing posters may accuse conservatives of on this thread.
Click to expand...


the only thing i have proven is you are a clown of infinite proportion b/c you state socialism and liberalism don't equal and I say to you are clown b/c socialism and liberalism are the same movements.  YOu must have fallen off the turnip truck back in the day, moron.


----------



## zonly1

Saigon said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... but saigon _implies _that everyone not a liberal uses them and that no none liberal post is complete without them.
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all - we have some very intelligent conservative posters on this board who understand politics extremely well.
> 
> I am in no way insulting conservatives or conservatism.
> 
> *What I am insulting is ignorance*. And unfortuantely, the kind of people who post the "socialism = liberal" cliches we see in two posts on this page alone are here in greater numbers on the right than left, IMHO.
Click to expand...

You need to grow up before you shoot your mouth off clyde but roll the dice


----------



## syrenn

Saigon said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... but saigon _implies _that everyone not a liberal uses them and that no none liberal post is complete without them.
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all - we have some very intelligent conservative posters on this board who understand politics extremely well.
> 
> I am in no way insulting conservatives or conservatism.
> 
> What I am insulting is ignorance. And unfortuantely, the kind of people who post the "socialism = liberal" cliches we see in two posts on this page alone are here in greater numbers on the right than left, IMHO.
Click to expand...


What can i say.... a good deal of the liberals have been banned ....and its not easy getting banned. 

In my opinion there are just as many left hacks on this board as there are right ones. I am sure the left leaning posters feel more comfortable on left leaning boards and congregate there. 

Trust me.... the right feels the same way as you.... "all the liberal hacks out there on this board" and also post at more conservative sites. 

So again..... the left is just as brittle and unbending as the right....just as foul mouthed,insulting and trollish as the right.... the left is just as ignorant and stupid as the left.


----------



## Care4all

People who can't take responsibility for their own actions generally find someone else to blame, and hate who they've decided to peg, to make themselves feel better, I suppose?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Meanwhile we have threads where Liberals on this board called republicans and tea party members terrorists. Traitors murderers and mentally incompetent. I can't count how many times the left on this board has posted threads claiming Conservatives are mental defectives, mental disorders or insane. I can't count how many times the term terrorist has been used by Liberals on this board to describe Tea party and Conservatives. All with out a single source to back the claim.

Every time there is a high profile shooting the left in the media and this board and the DNC all announce gleefully that it was done by a member of the Tea party or a conservative. And every time they are wrong.

Asking for positive Id to vote is labeled a trick to deny voting rights, or claimed to be a poll tax. How many threads have we had where it is claimed the right stole elections and in the same breath statements that voter fraud doesn't happen so no need for ID. Explain again how the right supposedly stole a National election twice if there was no voter fraud. Ohh and provide evidence any election was actually stolen.

You sure we are on the same board?


----------



## Old Rocks

LOL.   Ol' Nicky Baby and Zoned Out proving everything that Saigon said about very willfully ignorant assholes. Gotta love it.


----------



## Saigon

*Mr Nick & Zonly - *



zonly1 said:


> the only thing i have proven is you are a clown of infinite proportion b/c you state socialism and liberalism don't equal and I say to you are clown b/c socialism and liberalism are the same movements.  YOu must have fallen off the turnip truck back in the day, moron.



No, I am on fairly solid ground here - I have both studied and worked with political theory from time to time. 

The best map we have of political theories is the horseshoe, which is linked below. 

What the horseshoe shows is that people close to the centre on either left or right wing are much, much closer to each other than they are to the extremes. 

Clinton (centre left) is closer to Bush (centre right) than he is to Stalin (extreme left).

McCain (centre right) is closer to Obama (Social Democract) than he is to Hitler (extreme right). 

This is really the basis to understanding all political theory. 

Horseshoe theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Old Rocks

RetiredGySgt said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile we have threads where Liberals on this board called republicans and tea party members terrorists. Traitors murderers and mentally incompetent. I can't count how many times the left on this board has posted threads claiming Conservatives are mental defectives, mental disorders or insane. I can't count how many times the term terrorist has been used by Liberals on this board to describe Tea party and Conservatives. All with out a single source to back the claim.
> 
> Every time there is a high profile shooting the left in the media and this board and the DNC all announce gleefully that it was done by a member of the Tea party or a conservative. And every time they are wrong.
> 
> Asking for positive Id to vote is labeled a trick to deny voting rights, or claimed to be a poll tax. How many threads have we had where it is claimed the right stole elections and in the same breath statements that voter fraud doesn't happen so no need for ID. Explain again how the right supposedly stole a National election twice if there was no voter fraud. Ohh and provide evidence any election was actually stolen.
> 
> You sure we are on the same board?
Click to expand...


LOL.  Naw, not all of those things. Just mentally incompetant will do. As applied to 'Conservatives', not conservatives.


----------



## syrenn

Care4all said:


> People who can't take responsibility for their own actions generally find someone else to blame, and hate who they've decided to peg, to make themselves feel better, I suppose?


----------



## Saigon

RetiredGySgt said:


> Meanwhile we have threads where Liberals on this board called republicans and tea party members terrorists. Traitors murderers and mentally incompetent. I can't count how many times the left on this board has posted threads claiming Conservatives are mental defectives, mental disorders or insane. I can't count how many times the term terrorist has been used by Liberals on this board to describe Tea party and Conservatives. All with out a single source to back the claim.



Well, there are plenty of idiotic posters to go around, Sgt! 

I totally agree that this kind of posting is stupid, and I wish we saw less of it. 

But personally, I see more "dumb liberals" comments than I see "Tea Party terrorists" comments.


----------



## Mr.Nick

"Progress" progresses into Orwellian territory - once the idiots realize what they have done to our society and culture it will be too late. 

I don't understand progressives whatsoever... Why does a person want a government to run their life - dictate what they can and cant do - dictate what they can and cant eat - dictate (eventually) where they can and cannot go?


----------



## syrenn

Saigon said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile we have threads where Liberals on this board called republicans and tea party members terrorists. Traitors murderers and mentally incompetent. I can't count how many times the left on this board has posted threads claiming Conservatives are mental defectives, mental disorders or insane. I can't count how many times the term terrorist has been used by Liberals on this board to describe Tea party and Conservatives. All with out a single source to back the claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there are plenty of idiotic posters to go around, Sgt!
> 
> I totally agree that this kind of posting is stupid, and I wish we saw less of it.
> 
> But personally, I see more "dumb liberals" comments than I see "Tea Party terrorists" comments.
Click to expand...



Again.... May 2012......



Unless you want to read through several years of postings..... you dont have legs to stand on. 

Ill give you a hint.... just stick with liesmatters and it should give you a nice taste.


----------



## Old Rocks

Nicky Baby, there is damned little in life that you understand. Until you learn to do real research into what is being said by whom, instead of listening to whatever dingbat is currently ranting, you will continue to come off as one ignorant fellow.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Old Rocks said:


> LOL.   Ol' Nicky Baby and Zoned Out proving everything that Saigon said about very willfully ignorant assholes. Gotta love it.





Another one-liner?

Why don't refute our claims?? oh yeah  you cant... Your ignorance gets in the way...

Sorry your 8th grade education (yeah I know you call it 12th) can only take you so far in life...


----------



## zonly1

Old Rocks said:


> LOL.   Ol' Nicky Baby and Zoned Out proving everything that Saigon said about very willfully ignorant assholes. Gotta love it.



It(suckon) has proven nothing and continues to prove nothing in any argument it has stated.  It's quiet pathetic to make statements about socialism and liberalism do not equal nor doesn't make the same definitions.  We are not interested of your limited historical context of world events b/c at the end of the day you will make arguments out of ignorance.


----------



## Saigon

*Mr Nick and Zonly 1:*



Mr.Nick said:


> Why don't refute our claims?? oh yeah  you cant... Your ignorance gets in the way...



I posted a more accurate and widely used model of political theories in post #63. 

I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.


----------



## Old Rocks

Mr.Nick said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.   Ol' Nicky Baby and Zoned Out proving everything that Saigon said about very willfully ignorant assholes. Gotta love it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one-liner?
> 
> Why don't refute our claims?? oh yeah  you cant... Your ignorance gets in the way...
> 
> Sorry your 8th grade education (yeah I know you call it 12th) can only take you so far in life...
Click to expand...


One can get a fair idea of the amount of education that differant posters have attained by the logic and lucidity of their presentations of what ever subject they are interested in.


----------



## Saigon

syrenn said:


> Unless you want to read through several years of postings..... you dont have legs to stand on.
> 
> Ill give you a hint.... just stick with liesmatters and it should give you a nice taste.



Ha! I think Bripart, Mr Nick and Zonly1 have proven my point admirably. 

And again, I am not saying that left wing posters can't be as bad - I'm just saying there aren't as many of them relying on the really Dial0800-CLICHE style posting.


----------



## zonly1

Saigon said:


> *Mr Nick and Zonly 1:*
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't refute our claims?? oh yeah  you cant... Your ignorance gets in the way...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a more accurate and widely used model of political theories in post #63.
> 
> I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.
Click to expand...

before you start dodging out of town maybe you can dispute my claim that socialism and liberalism are one of the same.

fuck your prior comments....answer mine  and I'm sure as hell not going to look ur at aprior post.


----------



## MeBelle

Saigon said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their economic theory's are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see there is any evidence of that at a theoertical level.
> 
> Some of the world's most succesful governments have been liberal.
> 
> In fact, I think you'd struggle to mount a case that conservatives have a better economi record in government that liberals. In any country.
Click to expand...


Everyone needs to take a peek at where Saigon says s/he lives.

USA posters should then understand Saigon's question better.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Old Rocks said:


> Nicky Baby, there is damned little in life that you understand. Until you learn to do real research into what is being said by whom, instead of listening to whatever dingbat is currently ranting, you will continue to come off as one ignorant fellow.





There is absolutely no subject you know more about than I do....

Anything from theoretical physics to grammar - you're an idiot compared to me....


----------



## syrenn

Saigon said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you want to read through several years of postings..... you dont have legs to stand on.
> 
> Ill give you a hint.... just stick with liesmatters and it should give you a nice taste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! I think Bripart, Mr Nick and Zonly1 have proven my point admirably.
> 
> And again, I am not saying that left wing posters can't be as bad - I'm just saying there aren't as many of them relying on the really Dial0800-CLICHE style posting.
Click to expand...



And again.... you have not been around long enough to make that kind of statement..... lol. 


A good deal of your leftist deal a cliche idiots are no longer around..... give it time and i am sure they will be back in droves again


----------



## Saigon

MeBelle60 said:


> Everyone needs to take a peek at where Saigon says s/he lives.
> 
> USA posters should then understand Saigon's question better.



I live in Finland. 

Where we have 10 major political parties, 8 in parliament, and 4 in government. 

Your point being....?


----------



## Saigon

zonly1 said:


> before you start dodging out of town maybe you can dispute my claim that socialism and liberalism are one of the same.
> 
> fuck your prior comments....answer mine  and I'm sure as hell not going to look ur at aprior post.



Your answer is in post #63. 

It's up to you whether you look at it, but personally I think the idea of the political horseshoe is the basis for understanding all modern politics (without spending 4 years at university, anyway!).


----------



## Mr.Nick

Saigon said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you want to read through several years of postings..... you dont have legs to stand on.
> 
> Ill give you a hint.... just stick with liesmatters and it should give you a nice taste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! I think Bripart, Mr Nick and Zonly1 have proven my point admirably.
> 
> And again, I am not saying that left wing posters can't be as bad - I'm just saying there aren't as many of them relying on the really Dial0800-CLICHE style posting.
Click to expand...


I'm not proving anyones point Socrates...


----------



## Saigon

Mr.Nick said:


> I'm not proving anyones point Socrates...



As long as you keep posting that suggests Stalin, Truman, the Dalai Lama and Joe Liebermann are on the same political team, then yes you are. 

At the point you realise that Hitler (extreme right) has more in common with Stalin (extreme left) than either do with Obama or Romney, then you won't be proving my point.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Saigon said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not proving anyones point Socrates...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you keep posting that suggests Stalin, Truman, the Dalai Lama and Joe Liebermann are on the same political team, then yes you are.
> 
> At the point you realise that Hitler (extreme right) has more in common with Stalin (extreme left) than either do with Obama or Romney, then you won't be proving my point.
Click to expand...




For the fifth time on this board - the only difference between Stalin and Hitler were THEIR FUCKING MUSTACHE....

I would love for all you intelligent motherfuckers to cite examples where they were somehow different... Oh yeah that is right only pop culture and academics attempt to differentiate the two...


----------



## Mr.Nick

The only difference is Hitler murdered 8,000,000 and Stalin murdered 50,000,000...


----------



## Mr.Nick

Are any progressives interested in a debate over Mao's Five Year Plan?

???


----------



## Saigon

Mr.Nick said:


> For the fifth time on this board - the only difference between Stalin and Hitler were THEIR FUCKING MUSTACHE....
> 
> I would love for all you intelligent motherfuckers to cite examples where they were somehow different... Oh yeah that is right only pop culture and academics attempt to differentiate the two...



This is very much my point, Nick - Hitler and Stalin had a HUGE amount in common, despite being polar opposites in terms of political theories. 

If you look at the political horseshoe, you can see that Hitler and Stalin are close together than either are to the centre.


----------



## MeBelle

Saigon said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone needs to take a peek at where Saigon says s/he lives.
> 
> USA posters should then understand Saigon's question better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live in Finland.
> 
> Where we have 10 major political parties, 8 in parliament, and 4 in government.
> 
> Your point being....?
Click to expand...


...that in Finland, the top three parties are described as socialist, liberal conservative and liberal, in that order.


And as far as "hate" is concerned, I personally 'hate' no one. 
Using 'hate' is a flame word  used as an attempt to get a response. Idiot, stupid and retard fall into the flame word category.  
I teach my children that we can converse without upping the rhetoric. 
Adults should attempt what my children already know.


----------



## Saigon

Mr.Nick said:


> The only difference is Hitler murdered 8,000,000 and Stalin murdered 50,000,000...



You might want to check those figures - Hitler is responsible for AT LEAST 20 million deaths. 

There were more than 11.5 million murdered in the Holocaust alone.


----------



## Billo_Really

Godboy said:


> Well for starters, they call republicans racist if they disagree with obama.


That's not true.  We call certain people racists who:

criticize the President less than 10 days after his inaugaration before he's even had a chance to do anything to be criticized for.
make up baseless accusations just to criticize him.
hold up racist signs at pep rallys.
say that we need to bring back Jim Crow laws like Tom Tancredo said at a town hall.
people who say he has a "deep seated hatred for white people".
people who claim "he's not one of us"; "he's a muslim"; "he's not from here"; "he pals around with terrorists"'
people who sing songs like "Barack the magic negro"
And people who simply refuse to respect the Office of the Presidency, no matter what he does.

Those are the people we call racist.


----------



## Saigon

MeBelle60 said:


> ...that in Finland, the top three parties are described as socialist, liberal conservative and liberal, in that order.



No they aren't. 

Parties ranked by % of the popular vote are:

Kokoomus (Urban Conservative)

Social Democrat (Centre left)

True Finns (Extreme Right/Populist)

Centre Party (Rural Conservative)

Left Alliance (Socialist)

Greens (Left)

Swedish Speakers (Centre)

Christians (Right)

Finnish parliamentary election, 2011 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Billo_Really

Mr.Nick said:


> There is absolutely no subject you know more about than I do....
> 
> Anything from theoretical physics to grammar - you're an idiot compared to me....


Okay, let's put that to the test.  It's your time to put up, or shut up.

Answer the following question, Mr. Wizard:



> *You have a 480/277V, 3PH, 4W, 1600A main switchboard.
> 
> Do you need GFI?*


----------



## Mr.Nick

loinboy said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no subject you know more about than I do....
> 
> Anything from theoretical physics to grammar - you're an idiot compared to me....
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's put that to the test.  It's your time to put up, or shut up.
> 
> Answer the following question, Mr. Wizard:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You have a 480/277V, 3PH, 4W, 1600A main switchboard.
> 
> Do you need GFI?*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That is a trick question ac/dc??

Yes you would need a ground..


----------



## zonly1

Saigon said:


> zonly1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> before you start dodging out of town maybe you can dispute my claim that socialism and liberalism are one of the same.
> 
> fuck your prior comments....answer mine  and I'm sure as hell not going to look ur at aprior post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your answer is in post #63.
> 
> It's up to you whether you look at it, but personally I think the idea of the political horseshoe is the basis for understanding all modern politics (without spending 4 years at university, anyway!).
Click to expand...


Well since you won't link your explanation I'll say #63 is bullshite based on the fact you can't understand socialism =liberalism.  So you either can prove it or you can't and no I'm not looking back at your post.


----------



## Billo_Really

Mr.Nick said:


> That is a trick question ac/dc??
> 
> Yes you would need a ground..


All wye systems are grounded, but you were pretty close so we'll give it to ya. 

 The actual answer is "ground fault protection".



> *The code reads:*
> Anytime you have a service over 1200 amps and over 150 volts to ground, you need GFI.


Sorry, I couldn't resist throwing in a little shop talk.  I've been an electrical engineer for the last 30 years.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Red (heat) green (not heat) black (ground)...


----------



## Mr.Nick

loinboy said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a trick question ac/dc??
> 
> Yes you would need a ground..
> 
> 
> 
> All wye systems are grounded, but you were pretty close so we'll give it to ya.
> 
> The actual answer is "ground fault protection".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The code reads:*
> Anytime you have a service over 1200 amps and over 150 volts to ground, you need GFI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I couldn't resist throwing in a little shop talk.  I've been an electrical engineer for the last 30 years.
Click to expand...


I suppose experience in the AV industry helps...


----------



## Billo_Really

Mr.Nick said:


> Red (heat) green (not heat) black (ground)...


Are you referring to the color coding of conductors?  Because they vary.  As an example, with AC systems, black is (hot); with DC systems, black  is (common), which is a way saying it's the neutral, grounded conductor.

Green is always your equipment ground.


----------



## Billo_Really

Mr.Nick said:


> I suppose experience in the AV industry helps...


Audio/Visual?


----------



## Saigon

zonly1 said:


> Well since you won't link your explanation .



Horseshoe theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Mr.Nick

loinboy said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red (heat) green (not heat) black (ground)...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to the color coding of conductors?  Because they vary.  As an example, with AC systems, black is (hot); with DC systems, black  is (common), which is a way saying it's the neutral, grounded conductor.
> 
> Green is always your equipment ground.
Click to expand...


Well I know enough about electric to not get killed....  One of our families business' is audio video so we come across electricity time to time... We do mostly corporate jobs - upgrades to HD-TV, audio systems etc...  

I will say this much - I've had my fair share of zapps climbing in ceilings...

Wire nuts suck....


----------



## MeBelle

Saigon said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...that in Finland, the top three parties are described as socialist, liberal conservative and liberal, in that order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they aren't.
> 
> Parties ranked by % of the popular vote are:
> 
> Kokoomus (Urban Conservative)
> 
> Social Democrat (Centre left)
> 
> True Finns (Extreme Right/Populist)
> 
> Centre Party (Rural Conservative)
> 
> Left Alliance (Socialist)
> 
> Greens (Left)
> 
> Swedish Speakers (Centre)
> 
> Christians (Right)
> 
> Finnish parliamentary election, 2011 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, sort of...from your link:

National Coalition Party
National Coalition Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"...is a liberal conservative political party in Finland founded in 1918."
Last election
50 seats, 22.26%

Social Democrats  Social Democratic Party of Finland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
" The party aims to achieve social democratic goals: a society in which freedom, equality, solidarity and co-operation thrives in a peaceful and clean environment."
Last election
45 seats, 21.44%	

True Finns
True Finns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
'The party combines left-wing economic policies with conservative social values'
Last election
5 seats, 4.05%
***********************

*What you are NOT seeing is the factoid that I was sticking up for you.*

Political parties in the USA are opposite of those in Europe and they operate differently. 


#side note-The Pirate Party (meaning the name) cracks me up! (meaning, makes me giggle)


----------



## Billo_Really

Mr.Nick said:


> Well I know enough about electric to not get killed....  One of our families business' is audio video so we come across electricity time to time... We do mostly corporate jobs - upgrades to HD-TV, audio systems etc...
> 
> I will say this much - I've had my fair share of zapps climbing in ceilings...
> 
> Wire nuts suck....


I got zapped by 277V one time for just that reason.  I was backing down off a ladder and my hand was coming down past some neutrals wire nutted together and someone didn't twist the nut as tight as it should have been and it came down with my fingers.  All of sudden, I feel this current at the top of my head, moving down past my ears and then past my shoulders, before I hopped off the ladder.


----------



## Mr.Nick

loinboy said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose experience in the AV industry helps...
> 
> 
> 
> Audio/Visual?
Click to expand...


Yes... TV's, sound systems etc..

We do mostly corporate now... When we first started out we did bars and such and the rich folks homes....

We have mostly celebrity clients when it comes to residential....  We wont do a job for anything less than $300 an hour...


----------



## Billo_Really

Mr.Nick said:


> Yes... TV's, sound systems etc..
> 
> We do mostly corporate now... When we first started out we did bars and such and the rich folks homes....
> 
> We have mostly celebrity clients when it comes to residential....  We wont do a job for anything less than $300 an hour...


Do you know how much some hedge fund managers make?

*$39,000 per hour.*

What the hell can they possibly do that's worth that much money.


----------



## Saigon

MeBelle60 said:


> Political parties in the USA are opposite of those in Europe and they operate differently.



Yes, they do. Very differently in some ways, and very similar in others.

Certainly the word 'liberal' in the US has drifted a long way from its British roots...but I think most of us non-US posters do understand the sense in which Americans mean it. 

btw. While I understand what Wiki is referring to, Kokoomus are very much a pro-business conservative party and True Finns populist. Like most populast parties they through out the odd left wing policy, but they are mainly anti-immigrant and very conservative. I wouldn't call either liberal at all.


----------



## Mr.Nick

loinboy said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I know enough about electric to not get killed....  One of our families business' is audio video so we come across electricity time to time... We do mostly corporate jobs - upgrades to HD-TV, audio systems etc...
> 
> I will say this much - I've had my fair share of zapps climbing in ceilings...
> 
> Wire nuts suck....
> 
> 
> 
> I got zapped by 277V one time for just that reason.  I was backing down off a ladder and my hand was coming down past some neutrals wire nutted together and someone didn't twist the nut as tight as it should have been and it came down with my fingers.  All of sudden, I feel this current at the top of my head, moving down past my ears and then past my shoulders, before I hopped off the ladder.
Click to expand...


I got a nice little "tap" recently pulling wires...

AV work is difficult..... Wires need to be pulled but one has no idea if they will be crawling through an attic or a crawl space......


----------



## SniperFire

Mr.Nick said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not proving anyones point Socrates...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you keep posting that suggests Stalin, Truman, the Dalai Lama and Joe Liebermann are on the same political team, then yes you are.
> 
> At the point you realise that Hitler (extreme right) has more in common with Stalin (extreme left) than either do with Obama or Romney, then you won't be proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the fifth time on this board - the only difference between Stalin and Hitler were THEIR FUCKING MUSTACHE....
> 
> I would love for all you intelligent motherfuckers to cite examples where they were somehow different... Oh yeah that is right only pop culture and academics attempt to differentiate the two...
Click to expand...


The Nazi's even stole the Communist's advertising program, right down to the poster themes and color.


----------



## MeBelle

Saigon said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Political parties in the USA are opposite of those in Europe and they operate differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they do. Very differently in some ways, and very similar in others.
> 
> Certainly the word 'liberal' in the US has drifted a long way from its British roots...but I think most of us non-US posters do understand the sense in which Americans mean it.
> 
> btw. While I understand what Wiki is referring to, Kokoomus are very much a pro-business conservative party and True Finns populist. Like most populast parties they through out the odd left wing policy, but they are mainly anti-immigrant and very conservative. I wouldn't call either liberal at all.
Click to expand...


Kudos! For great chat without descending to cursing! 

I did not see Kokoomus on your wiki link...which leaves me


----------



## squeeze berry

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



someone could just as easily start a thread " why do people hate conservatives"

I don't think it's hate as much as contempt. 

I used to be a liberal and then I grew up. As others have stated before me, liberals can be just as inflexible.

What I like least about liberalism:

political correctness, which includes the "you are racist I'm not" philosophy. that includes xenophobia and homophobia.
hard core atheists
gotcha politics
social re-engineering
lack of fiscal reasponsibility

What I like least about conservatives:

if you disagree you are not patriotic
hard core evangelicals
not wanting to cut back on the military spending


----------



## SniperFire

To answer OP, the modern Liberal is just the latest incarnation of Progressive.

The huge mistake (and ignorance) is that this isn't about 'right' or 'left'. Authoritarianism comes in both flavors.

It is Progressive/ Statism versus a free society.

Progressives believe government knows what is best for you and the individual, not so much.

The Nazi's were Progressives. The Communists were progressives.

They both hated, and continue to hate, the personal liberty, freedom, individualism and self-determination of the free American society.

Oh, and Obama is a Progressive.


----------



## OODA_Loop

SniperFire said:


> Progressives believe government knows what is best for you and the individual, not so much.



Progressives can't even agree on how this works.

With millions of emotional rationalizations and no absolutes, _ how can they _?


----------



## editec

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


 
The people who are so over the top in their hatred are partisan trolls.

Basically they're just getting off on hating.

These are the sorts of people who will always find somebody to hate.

That's just their thing.


----------



## kaz

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals



As a libertarian, I want to be able to follow my own views and values and I want conservatives and liberals to be able to follow theirs.

Liberals with the power of guns are forcing us all to follow their views and values.  And those views and values reward greed and laziness and disincent work and responsibility.

I have no respect for people who's ambition is to remove my choice and control over my own life.  When they take rather than appreciating they spit on and blame the victim.  When they get their way, they get more angry that they have nothing.


----------



## Fordsflylow

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now Mathew, you really think that the economic theories that resulted in the First Great Republican Depression were not destructive? And that the deconstruction of the regulations that were put into place because of that Depression, leading up to October, 2008, and a very near brush with the Second Great Republican Depression, were not destuctive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve caused the panic of 1929, and then Roosevelt's economic policies extended a sharp but short recession into a depression.  Pretty much the same thing happened in 2008.  Only morons blame low taxes and deregulation for the depression.
Click to expand...


It's obvious from your post here you dropped out of school, or didn't pay any attention to history.

What is the Fed Reserve?  Is it a privately owned entity or a gov entity?


----------



## kaz

Truthseeker420 said:


> I don't want to get into detail because then I would be accused of being hateful toward cons. But while liberals view the world with shades of gray, conservatives view the world as black vs white,us vs them,good vs evil.



Right, which is why liberals all have the same position on every issue while Republicans are split on every issue.  What you are saying is ... baaa ...


----------



## kaz

editec said:


> The people who are so over the top in their hatred are partisan trolls



Gotcha, hating liberals is over the top partisan troll, a rational person hates conservatives...


----------



## midcan5

Liberal was made a bad word as momma used to say. How did this happen, it took lots of time and lots of money. When FDR called his administration liberal, business and the republican party started the denigration of a word. When business faced unions, fair wages, safe working conditions there had to be a foe. Foes make life simple. Liberal is associated with taxes, welfare, civil rights, EEO, environmental concerns, affirmative action, unions, regulation, all things that are controversial for some and often take power from them. It is a lesson in the power of ideas that as inequality grows the reason for it is  now the fault of the victim. America is consciously making itself a third world nation in which business money rules, and ignorance is celebrated. And so it goes....

"The rise of conservative politics in postwar America is one of the great puzzles of American political history. For much of the period that followed the end of World War II, conservative ideas about the primacy of the free market, and the dangers of too-powerful labor unions, government regulation, and an activist, interventionist state seemed to have been thoroughly rejected by most intellectual and political elites. Scholars and politicians alike dismissed those who adhered to such faiths as a "radical right," for whom to quote the Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter politics "becomes an arena into which the wildest fancies are projected, the most paranoid suspicions, the most absurd superstitions, the most bizarre apocalyptic fantasies." How, then, did such ideas move from their marginal position in the middle years of the twentieth century to become the reigning politics of the country by the century's end?" Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')


----------



## TakeAStepBack

I don't have any hatred toward liberals. It's just that those who call themselves liberal a majority of the time (on this board) aren't liberal at all. "Progressive"? Sure, if by progression we're moving back to the times when "governance" meant telling everyone what to do at all times. There isn't anything liberal about that idea. 

Which is why they get called what they are. LOLberals.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Liberals purged Joe Lieberman from their party for daring to put country above their anti American, pro-jihad,anti-gwot program


----------



## Billo_Really

kaz said:


> Liberals with the power of guns .


What the hell does that mean?  Care to explain that one in more detail?  What liberals, what powers and with what guns?




kaz said:


> are forcing us all to follow their views and values.


Give me 3 examples of liberals forcing their views on you.


----------



## jillian

syrenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, not hate......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but if you want a good reason to mock rabid liberals....i give you liesmaters. The facts lay withing the link
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=5673362
Click to expand...


that's one person... 

i could give you 20 on the other side, hon. 

but the reality is that this is a stupid thread. b/c we know the only people who 'hate' liberals are insane rightwingnut loons.

normal conservatives and normal liberals don't hate each other.


----------



## SniperFire

loinboy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals with the power of guns .
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does that mean?  Care to explain that one in more detail?  What liberals, what powers and with what guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> are forcing us all to follow their views and values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give me 3 examples of liberals forcing their views on you.
Click to expand...


LOL

Delusional, I say!


----------



## Billo_Really

CrusaderFrank said:


> Liberals purged Joe Lieberman from their party for daring to put country above their anti American, pro-jihad,anti-gwot program


Spending over a trillion dollars in someone else's country with no direct benefit for average American's, is not something done FOR this country.


----------



## Billo_Really

SniperFire said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals with the power of guns .
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does that mean?  Care to explain that one in more detail?  What liberals, what powers and with what guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> are forcing us all to follow their views and values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give me 3 examples of liberals forcing their views on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Delusional, I say!
Click to expand...

Why is a "question" delusional?

Or are you saying it's delusional to ask someone to give 3 examples of what they're talking about?  Because if you're going to broadstroke all liberals in such a way, then you should have no trouble in citing 3 examples that led you to that conclusion.

And if you can't, then you're full of shit, like you are now!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fordsflylow said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now Mathew, you really think that the economic theories that resulted in the First Great Republican Depression were not destructive? And that the deconstruction of the regulations that were put into place because of that Depression, leading up to October, 2008, and a very near brush with the Second Great Republican Depression, were not destuctive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve caused the panic of 1929, and then Roosevelt's economic policies extended a sharp but short recession into a depression.  Pretty much the same thing happened in 2008.  Only morons blame low taxes and deregulation for the depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious from your post here you dropped out of school, or didn't pay any attention to history.
> 
> What is the Fed Reserve?  Is it a privately owned entity or a gov entity?
Click to expand...


The fed sucked 1/3 of the money supply out of the economy causing a bad recession. FDR turned it into a depression worse than the 7 Biblical lean years


----------



## Saigon

SniperFire said:


> Says the person who claimed less than 5 percent of Americans are black.


----------



## SniperFire

Saigon said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the person who claimed less than 5 percent of Americans are black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your best is fail.
Click to expand...


----------



## Saigon

MeBelle60 said:


> Kudos! For great chat without descending to cursing!
> 
> I did not see Kokoomus on your wiki link...which leaves me



Sorry, I wrote the name in Finnish - kokoomus is National Coalition Party in English!


----------



## Billo_Really

SniperFire said:


> LOL
> 
> Your best is fail.


Did you say it or not?


----------



## Saigon

editec said:


> The people who are so over the top in their hatred are partisan trolls.
> 
> Basically they're just getting off on hating.
> 
> These are the sorts of people who will always find somebody to hate.
> 
> That's just their thing.



I totally agree, and I think that is a good point.


----------



## Billo_Really

Saigon said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who are so over the top in their hatred are partisan trolls.
> 
> Basically they're just getting off on hating.
> 
> These are the sorts of people who will always find somebody to hate.
> 
> That's just their thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree, and I think that is a good point.
Click to expand...

And a lot of that, is because it's familiar to them.  Things that are different, scare the shit out of them.


----------



## FA_Q2

Saigon said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you want to read through several years of postings..... you dont have legs to stand on.
> 
> Ill give you a hint.... just stick with liesmatters and it should give you a nice taste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! I think Bripart, Mr Nick and Zonly1 have proven my point admirably.
> 
> And again, I am not saying that left wing posters can't be as bad - I'm just saying there aren't as many of them relying on the really Dial0800-CLICHE style posting.
Click to expand...


And you are being called out on that because it is utter nonsense.  For every name that you come up with of a radical rightwing moron, I can give you one on the left.  They are just as prevalent.  TDM, RDean, BlackLabel, ED. The list goes on.  The right has just as many but making some random claim that there is a 10:1 ration is blind to what goes on in this board.

FWIW, if you want less of that crap, join us over at the CDZ, there are actually some good debates there.  LadyLiberal is giving me a really hard time on quite a few threads


----------



## salem.hills

Liberals have helped regress this society since the late 60's with they're anything goes society we've become. They stand for all things unAmerican anti individuality is the deal breaker. I'm a loyal unlike them I don't want the government in charge of doctor/health or choice of care. I don't want to be told what to eat what to drive or what to think.


----------



## Billo_Really

salem.hills said:


> Liberals have help regress this society since the late 60's with they're anything goes society we've become. They stand for all things unAmerican anti individuality is the deal breaker. I'm a loyal unlike them I don't want the government in charge of doctor/health or choice of care. I don't want to be told what to eat what to drive or what to think.


You call supporting legislation that allows the government to pluck you off the street and indefinately detain you for the rest of your life without charges ever being filed, patriotic?


----------



## Saigon

salem.hills said:


> Liberals have help regress this society since the late 60's with they're anything goes society we've become. They stand for all things unAmerican anti individuality is the deal breaker. I'm a loyal unlike them I don't want the government in charge of doctor/health or choice of care. I don't want to be told what to eat what to drive or what to think.



So you think that around half of all Americans are unloyal and anti-American?

Dude - this is just silly. 

Liberals are ever bit as loyal and American as a great many conservatives...why not try being a bit more respectful of different ideas?


----------



## SniperFire

*Why do people hate Liberals?*


A lot of it has to do with the stench.


----------



## Saigon

SniperFire said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the person who claimed less than 5 percent of Americans are black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your best is fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only reason I am giving you a hard time about your gaffe, Sniper, is because you behaved like such a spanked child when I called you on it.
> 
> Everyone makes mistakes - not everyone pretends it was someone elses fault.
Click to expand...


----------



## Billo_Really

SniperFire said:


> *Why do people hate Liberals?*
> 
> 
> A lot of it has to do with the stench.


The little drive by troll, open's her bitchy little mouth again.


----------



## Saigon

squeeze berry said:


> What I like least about liberalism:
> 
> political correctness, which includes the "you are racist I'm not" philosophy. that includes xenophobia and homophobia.
> hard core atheists
> gotcha politics
> social re-engineering
> lack of fiscal reasponsibility
> 
> What I like least about conservatives:
> 
> if you disagree you are not patriotic
> hard core evangelicals
> not wanting to cut back on the military spending



Thanks for posting some details! 

I'm puzzled you blame liberals for homophobia, and I'm not sure about fiscal responsiblity either. 

It seems to me neither US party hs shown any fiscal responsibility since the 1950s. 

Aithiesm and social re-engineering are valid points, sure.


----------



## zeke

Fuck that idea that the liberals are the same as the rethug. Want proof? Find a post from some right wing whack job on here and read the insane comment. Then look at the number of other whack jobs who say; Thanks for that idiot comment.

Then find a Liberal doing the same thing and see how many "thanks" are posted up.

You do the math. Rethugs win in a landslide. They truly support crazy and idiotic. Why "liberals" actually try and communicate with these whack jobs is a mystery to me.


----------



## SniperFire

Saigon said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the person who claimed less than 5 percent of Americans are black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your best is fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only reason I am giving you a hard time about your gaffe, Sniper, is because you behaved like such a spanked child when I called you on it.
> 
> Everyone makes mistakes - not everyone pretends it was someone elses fault.
Click to expand...



Your English isn't bad, really.  But keep working on it!

LOL


----------



## Katzndogz

I despise liberals.   But then anyone who wants to control my life, tell me what to eat, when to buckle my seat belt, who to personally like, and steal from me is going to be despised.


----------



## Saigon

Katzndogz said:


> I despise liberals.   But then anyone who wants to control my life, tell me what to eat, when to buckle my seat belt, who to personally like, and steal from me is going to be despised.



You must have really hated the Patriot Act.


----------



## Billo_Really

zeke said:


> Fuck that idea that the liberals are the same as the rethug. Want proof? Find a post from some right wing whack job on here and read the insane comment. Then look at the number of other whack jobs who say; Thanks for that idiot comment.
> 
> Then find a Liberal doing the same thing and see how many "thanks" are posted up.
> 
> You do the math. Rethugs win in a landslide. They truly support crazy and idiotic. Why "liberals" actually try and communicate with these whack jobs is a mystery to me.


Once you sever the lines of communication, war begins soon after.


----------



## Saigon

SniperFire said:


> Your English isn't bad, really.  But keep working on it!
> 
> LOL



My English probably isn't that much better than yours - but enough that I feel I can laugh at yours.


----------



## Billo_Really

SniperFire said:


> Your English isn't bad, really.  But keep working on it!
> 
> LOL


Shut up, troll!


----------



## Saigon

Katzndogz said:


> I despise liberals.   But then anyone who wants to control my life, tell me what to eat, when to buckle my seat belt, who to personally like, and steal from me is going to be despised.



You must have hated the Patriot Act.


----------



## SniperFire

*Why do people hate Liberals?*

Because their women are so freakin fugly?


----------



## FA_Q2

Saigon said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise liberals.   But then anyone who wants to control my life, tell me what to eat, when to buckle my seat belt, who to personally like, and steal from me is going to be despised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have hated the Patriot Act.
Click to expand...


Well, now they hate it, after they supported it.

It was Bush that birthed it in the first place.  Kind of the same way that some of the liberals screamed totalitarianism and NAZI but are now just fine with it.


----------



## Billo_Really

FA_Q2 said:


> Well, now they hate it, after they supported it.
> 
> It was Bush that birthed it in the first place.  Kind of the same way that some of the liberals screamed totalitarianism and NAZI but are now just fine with it.


I'm not fine with it.  I've been against it from day 1 and still am.  I'm also against the MCA and the NDAA.


----------



## Billo_Really

SniperFire said:


> *Why do people hate Liberals?*
> 
> Because their women are so freakin fugly?


Don't quit your day job.


----------



## Saigon

I think the Patriot Act stinks, and I don't like it any more now than I did when Bush passed it. 

It's a step backwards for democracy and freedom, and both sides should oppose that.


----------



## salem.hills

Saigon said:


> salem.hills said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have help regress this society since the late 60's with they're anything goes society we've become. They stand for all things unAmerican anti individuality is the deal breaker. I'm a loyal unlike them I don't want the government in charge of doctor/health or choice of care. I don't want to be told what to eat what to drive or what to think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that around half of all Americans are unloyal and anti-American?
> 
> Dude - this is just silly.
> 
> Liberals are ever bit as loyal and American as a great many conservatives...why not try being a bit more respectful of different ideas?
Click to expand...

They may not think so but


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Truthseeker420 said:


> I don't want to get into detail because then I would be accused of being hateful toward cons. But while liberals view the world with shades of gray, conservatives view the world as black vs white,us vs them,good vs evil.



This is great example of why I have disdain for most libs.  It's the Holier than thou thing.


----------



## Harry Dresden

MarcATL said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their economic theory's are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dunce, what's destructive is RW voodoo economics of "trickle down"
Click to expand...


Marc ....your a Liberal and the first poster here to call someone a name.....


----------



## TakeAStepBack

loinboy said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now they hate it, after they supported it&#8230;.
> 
> It was Bush that birthed it in the first place.  Kind of the same way that some of the liberals screamed totalitarianism and NAZI but are now just fine with it&#8230;.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not fine with it.  I've been against it from day 1 and still am.  I'm also against the MCA and the NDAA.
Click to expand...


And presumably, you support Barack Obama. That's where I don't get the LOLberals. When Bush was writing up shit like the patriot act, the howling and moaning from the lolberals was loud and boisterous. I know, because i sided with them over it.

But, now it really is just a side issue. It's a passing "I'm against it" now that Obama extended the act and even added new civil liberty erosions like NDAA2012.

That's the part i dont get. Bush and his wars and his civil liberties erosions and oh the HUGE Maniti. But it's crickets and the occassional "I'm against those things" when it is brought into question now that Obama is the one dishing out the unconstitutional wars, etc...


----------



## FA_Q2

loinboy said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now they hate it, after they supported it&#8230;.
> 
> It was Bush that birthed it in the first place.  Kind of the same way that some of the liberals screamed totalitarianism and NAZI but are now just fine with it&#8230;.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not fine with it.  I've been against it from day 1 and still am.  I'm also against the MCA and the NDAA.
Click to expand...


That&#8217;s what the SOME was there for 
I never supported it either and am against all the things you listed!!!  But then again, most true conservatives never supported any of that shit either.

EDIT: wait??  MCA?  Did I miss something...


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Harry Dresden said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their economic theory's are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dunce, what's destructive is RW voodoo economics of "trickle down"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marc ....your a Liberal and the first poster here to call someone a name.....
Click to expand...


Not to mention, trickle down economics only exists in the mind of the moon bat left.


----------



## SniperFire

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to get into detail because then I would be accused of being hateful toward cons. But while liberals view the world with shades of gray, conservatives view the world as black vs white,us vs them,good vs evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is great example of why I have disdain for most libs.  It's the Holier than thou thing.
Click to expand...


And as one poster pointed out, the truth is the polar opposite of what 'truth' just said.

Libtards are lockstep sheep, and conservatives fight amongst themselves.


----------



## bripat9643

zeke said:


> Fuck that idea that the liberals are the same as the rethug. Want proof? Find a post from some right wing whack job on here and read the insane comment. Then look at the number of other whack jobs who say; Thanks for that idiot comment.
> 
> Then find a Liberal doing the same thing and see how many "thanks" are posted up.
> 
> You do the math. Rethugs win in a landslide. They truly support crazy and idiotic. Why "liberals" actually try and communicate with these whack jobs is a mystery to me.



Liberals define "crazy and idiotic" as "not liberal."   That's why conservatives and libertarians rightly despise them.  There's no arguing with a liberal.  Verbal abuse is the only thing they understand.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

All the we need someone to repeal what Bush did! So they got their man in the white house and now the issue slate as changed dramatically. Now the big worry is whether or not we can all get free shit.

It's why I turned away from the party system. This is a deliberate social chasm used to keep people either on the right or on the left respectively. And it works brilliantly.


----------



## bripat9643

Saigon said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise liberals.   But then anyone who wants to control my life, tell me what to eat, when to buckle my seat belt, who to personally like, and steal from me is going to be despised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have really hated the Patriot Act.
Click to expand...


You'll find that all libertarians hate the patriot act.


----------



## FA_Q2

TakeAStepBack said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now they hate it, after they supported it.
> 
> It was Bush that birthed it in the first place.  Kind of the same way that some of the liberals screamed totalitarianism and NAZI but are now just fine with it.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not fine with it.  I've been against it from day 1 and still am.  I'm also against the MCA and the NDAA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And presumably, you support Barack Obama. That's where I don't get the LOLberals. When Bush was writing up shit like the patriot act, the howling and moaning from the lolberals was loud and boisterous. I know, because i sided with them over it.
> 
> But, now it really is just a side issue. It's a passing "I'm against it" now that Obama extended the act and even added new civil liberty erosions like NDAA2012.
> 
> That's the part i dont get. Bush and his wars and his civil liberties erosions and oh the HUGE Maniti. But it's crickets and the occassional "I'm against those things" when it is brought into question now that Obama is the one dishing out the unconstitutional wars, etc...
Click to expand...

Good point.  The association is that the RIGHT (at least with liberals) is taking away our rights and totalitarian so they are not going to let the right back into power.  Then the ugly truth rears its head: THE LEFT IS DOING THE SAME THING.  I am not sure how anyone that sides with freedom can support Obama but I guess when you look at Romney and see him as the only other choise and then match him with Bush. 

The delusions that we put on ourselves


----------



## Saigon

bripat9643 said:


> Verbal abuse is the only thing they understand.



I think you mean it is the only thing you have to offer.


----------



## plt42

Saigon said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their economic theory's are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see there is any evidence of that at a theoertical level.
> 
> Some of the world's most succesful governments have been liberal.
> 
> In fact, I think you'd struggle to mount a case that conservatives have a better economi record in government that liberals. In any country.
Click to expand...


"There are none so blind as those who will not see."


----------



## TakeAStepBack

plt42 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their economic theory's are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see there is any evidence of that at a theoertical level.
> 
> Some of the world's most succesful governments have been liberal.
> 
> In fact, I think you'd struggle to mount a case that conservatives have a better economi record in government that liberals. In any country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Click to expand...


I'll give you a hint. No budget in almost four years. The ones offered by Obama were shot down unanimously. And that is just a taste of this administrations failure in the fiscal/economic realm.


----------



## peach174

TakeAStepBack said:


> plt42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see there is any evidence of that at a theoertical level.
> 
> Some of the world's most succesful governments have been liberal.
> 
> In fact, I think you'd struggle to mount a case that conservatives have a better economi record in government that liberals. In any country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll give you a hint. No budget in almost four years. The ones offered by Obama were shot down unanimously. And that is just a taste of this administrations failure in the fiscal/economic realm.
Click to expand...



I agree.
I don't see how anyone can vote for Obama when he can't even run his campaign without going into the hole.


----------



## Murf76

It's not really all that difficult to understand that antipathy freedom-loving people would naturally have for those who seek to take their freedom away.  And even so, if my house was burning down, I'd trust any one of these guys that you refer to as a "hater" to get me out of it, because frankly.. conservatives actually love people more than so-called liberals do.  Conservatives don't hate babies, they don't want to limit granny to "a pill", and they don't divide human beings into socio-economic classes.

See, your basic problem here is that you've thus far refused to acknowledge that "liberals" aren't actually _liberal_.  Conservatives keep telling you that, but you keep answering with various versions of "nuh-uh". 
ALL collectivist ideologies pretty much end up the same way, with the lucky few elites in charge of everybody else.  The differences between socialism, communisim, fascism, and all those other _-isms_ are merely semantics, which don't make a hill of beans in terms of preserving freedom.  

When you look at the problem as _Collectivism_ vs. _Individualists/Liberty_, it's easy enough to see just who is getting on the other guy's toes.


----------



## peach174

MarcATL said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their economic theory's are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dunce, what's destructive is RW voodoo economics of "trickle down"
Click to expand...


That is the Democrats spin on it.
Republicans have always had the economic theory from the bottom up not from the top down.
Trickle down is a lie. Pushed heavily by the main stream media and liberal journalists.
Take a good look at our history and Repubs have always gotten the poor to become the middle class and the middle class to become the upper middle class and helps any American who wants to strive to become rich can achieve that goal.
A good example to look at is, President Calvin Coolidge policies, who accomplished this.


----------



## Saigon

Murf76 said:


> It's not really all that difficult to understand that antipathy freedom-loving people would naturally have for those who seek to take their freedom away..



What is difficult to understand, though, is that anyone would imagine that liberalism or conservativsm would be more interested in taking away your freedom.

That just strikes me as paranoid fantasy.


----------



## SniperFire

Saigon said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not really all that difficult to understand that antipathy freedom-loving people would naturally have for those who seek to take their freedom away..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is difficult to understand, though, is that anyone would imagine that liberalism or conservativsm would be more interested in taking away your freedom.
> 
> That just strikes me as paranoid fantasy.
Click to expand...


Again, you show complete lack of understanding regarding our Nation. 

Why not Post in the Finland Message Board where you might be better informed?

You come across as a hapless tard in here.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Saigon said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not really all that difficult to understand that antipathy freedom-loving people would naturally have for those who seek to take their freedom away..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is difficult to understand, though, is that anyone would imagine that liberalism or conservativsm would be more interested in taking away your freedom.
> 
> That just strikes me as paranoid fantasy.
Click to expand...


Yes, that is because you're using terminology that does not match the values expressed by todays left and right.

However, the progressive LOLberals just took away my right to due process. How is that for taking my freedom?


----------



## FA_Q2

Saigon said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not really all that difficult to understand that antipathy freedom-loving people would naturally have for those who seek to take their freedom away..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is difficult to understand, though, is that anyone would imagine that liberalism or conservativsm would be more interested in taking away your freedom.
> 
> That just strikes me as paranoid fantasy.
Click to expand...


Then you do not understand the American parties at all or what makes up the democrat party (what we call the liberal party) and republican party (what we call the conservative party).


----------



## Murf76

Saigon said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not really all that difficult to understand that antipathy freedom-loving people would naturally have for those who seek to take their freedom away..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is difficult to understand, though, is that anyone would imagine that liberalism or conservativsm would be more interested in taking away your freedom.
> 
> That just strikes me as paranoid fantasy.
Click to expand...


Collectivism depends upon making people adopt the goals of the collective.  And you can't _macromanage_ a society without _micromanaging_ lives.  We don't even need Hitleresque examples to see freedoms being removed.  We can see all we need to see right here under Barack Obama with Obamacare.


----------



## Saigon

SniperFire said:


> You come across as a hapless tard in here.



Says the person who thought blacks constitued less than 5% of the US population.


----------



## SniperFire

Saigon said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> You come across as a hapless tard in here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the person who thought blacks constitued less than 5% of the US population.
Click to expand...



I didn't make that claim. 

One of us is a self-admitted fraud and pathological liar.


----------



## Saigon

TakeAStepBack said:


> I'll give you a hint. No budget in almost four years. The ones offered by Obama were shot down unanimously. And that is just a taste of this administrations failure in the fiscal/economic realm.



Liberalism is more than the Obama administration, about whom your criticism are valid. 

Go back to Truman, Clinton, even Wilson...are you going to claim they were all fiscally irresponsible?


----------



## Saigon

SniperFire said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> You come across as a hapless tard in here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the person who thought blacks constitued less than 5% of the US population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make that claim.
> 
> One of us is a self-admitted fraud and pathological liar.
Click to expand...


Actually, yes you did, and you know you did. Do you really need me to link it for you again?


----------



## SniperFire

Saigon said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the person who thought blacks constitued less than 5% of the US population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make that claim.
> 
> One of us is a self-admitted fraud and pathological liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, yes you did, and you know you did. Do you really need me to link it for you again?
Click to expand...


'Pathological liar, fraud, weasel, imposter and generally an all round great guy.'


'nuff said.


----------



## SniperFire

But being a pathological liar, fraud, weasel, and imposter is rather standard fare for a Progressive.


Little is expected of you.


----------



## whitehall

Actually it's liberals who use the word "hate" in a political sense more than anyone else. Most people don't hate liberals, they just laugh at them. The fact of the matter is that liberals seldom even identify themselves as liberals.


----------



## SniperFire

whitehall said:


> Actually it's liberals who use the word "hate" in a political sense more than anyone else. Most people don't hate liberals, they just laugh at them. The fact of the matter is that liberals seldom even identify themselves as liberals.



For the same reason axe murderers don't self-identify, I reckon!


----------



## LilOlLady

Humans are genetically engineered to hate.


----------



## Saigon

whitehall said:


> Actually it's liberals who use the word "hate" in a political sense more than anyone else. Most people don't hate liberals, they just laugh at them.



I just can't imagine the arrogance a person would have to have to feel they can laugh at half of the human race. 

Honestly, I wonder if the reason the US struggles these days is that people have become too closed minded to listen to any idea they didn't have themselves. 

All countries should be listening and looking for solutions in everything from energy to healthcare to transport without thinking they know it all and can sit back and laugh at how other people think.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Saigon said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you a hint. No budget in almost four years. The ones offered by Obama were shot down unanimously. And that is just a taste of this administrations failure in the fiscal/economic realm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is more than the Obama administration, about whom your criticism are valid.
> 
> Go back to Truman, Clinton, even Wilson...are you going to claim they were all fiscally irresponsible?
Click to expand...


Wilson passed the federal reserve act. So not only was his administration fiscally/monetarily irresponsible, they were downright unconstitutional and stupid. He sold our countries economic prosperity into never ending debt slavery.

Clinton borrowed money to pass off budget shortfalls as surplus. People still buy that hunk of shit accounting smear job. Truman took the fourth term (fucking fourth term??? Talk about boikings) of FDR. Truman was a stand in man. He did not much. But FDR was a fucking HORRIBLE president. After Wilson, the second worst president for our constitution of all time. Hands down.


----------



## peach174

Saigon said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you a hint. No budget in almost four years. The ones offered by Obama were shot down unanimously. And that is just a taste of this administrations failure in the fiscal/economic realm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is more than the Obama administration, about whom your criticism are valid.
> 
> Go back to Truman, Clinton, even Wilson...are you going to claim they were all fiscally irresponsible?
Click to expand...


Clinton would not have gone down that road if the Republicans had not taken over the congress.

During Truman and Wilson administration there were more fiscal conservative Dem's.


----------



## Saigon

StepBack - 

I'm looking at a ranking of best and worst US presidents that has FDR ranked the 2nd best president of all time. 

Truman ranks #7. 

Wilson ranks #6. 

Andrew Johnson is in #8. 

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's worth thinking about, anyway....


----------



## TakeAStepBack

I realize the media, historians and political parasites put these ass clowns on pedestals. They also put Abe Lincoln on one for "saving the union".

it's worth thinking about anyway........


----------



## Saigon

TakeAStepBack said:


> I realize the media, historians and political parasites put these ass clowns on pedestals. They also put Abe Lincoln on one for "saving the union".
> 
> it's worth thinking about anyway........



Not being in the US, I'm not too up on the earlier presidents and who did what to whom. 

I've always found the extent to which the founding fathers are considered miraculous angels slightly off-putting...they were just mortal human beings, and some fairly faulted ones from what I've read. 

So I don't know who is good and who bad, but a list that has Truman up at #7 sounds right to me...

(And having just been to Monrovia, I do have a soft spot for Monroe, as well!)


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Is it a popularity contest, or is it a contest based on constitutional merits?

That's the question. And in that question when the homework is done, the top of the list presidents mostly account for those that took the law into their own hands and side stepped our system. that is truly what progressives are about. Taking the law to be it what they deem right or step on the system to get their way. This is the LOLberal doctrine. It was in my public school, it is in them now and it was in my university as well. Some of us just aren't that blind and numb to historical facts.


----------



## MarcATL

Avatar4321 said:


> I don't hate liberals. BTW they are progressives. They just stole the liberal moniker when people realized how nuts progressives were.
> 
> I just want them to stop taking my money and interfering in my life. That's all.



Glenn, none of those monikers mean anything, least of all coming from you.

*Snap out of it!*


----------



## asaratis

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



It is simpler to say why the hatred for liberalism than it is to define a liberal.

Liberal principles encourage the taking of a man's earnings to give to another.

It is necessary in a modern society that infrastructure to benefit all of society be built and maintained by way of funds originating from the society's treasury.  Taxation serves this purpose.  This is the taking of a man's money to give to society...for the common good.  I have no problem with that if the taxes are fairly distributed among all people and not excessively applied to anyone nor forgiven completely on account simply of a person objecting to being taxed.  Taxes have to be mandatory.  They can be graduated of course, in accordance with income, but there should not be anyone in the society that gets off free.

It is where the liberals try to take earnings from one man and give to a second man where the second man merely chooses without justification to receive earnings without work that I come to butt heads with liberalism.

Not all liberals are against capitalism and free enterprise but it does seem that liberals tend to favor equalizing income by punishing hard work and rewarding laziness.  That just ain't my idea of true PROGRESS!

Even the moniker _progressive_ does not fit the liberal well.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.


----------



## Decus

Saigon said:


> StepBack -
> 
> I'm looking at a ranking of best and worst US presidents that has FDR ranked the 2nd best president of all time.
> 
> Truman ranks #7.
> 
> Wilson ranks #6.
> 
> Andrew Johnson is in #8.
> 
> Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It's worth thinking about, anyway....




FDR was hands down the worst president in US history. New studies are beginning to wash away the myth of his presidency. This is a man that took a nation largely built around values of self-sufficiency and sold the idea that government (his of course) was the solution to all problems. He would provide a chicken in every pot, while seizing all the gold. A phony who had no empathy for the average man, yet could spin a tale during his fireside chats that conned a nation into believing that he was one of them. This is a man that lied to Allies, promising to support their independence after the war, and without care handed them to Stalin. This man was in fact the very model on which the modern day US politician was created.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Decus said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> StepBack -
> 
> I'm looking at a ranking of best and worst US presidents that has FDR ranked the 2nd best president of all time.
> 
> Truman ranks #7.
> 
> Wilson ranks #6.
> 
> Andrew Johnson is in #8.
> 
> Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It's worth thinking about, anyway....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was hands down the worst president in US history. New studies are beginning to wash away the myth of his presidency. This is a man that took a nation largely built around values of self-sufficiency and sold the idea that government (his of course) was the solution to all problems. He would provide a chicken in every pot, while seizing all the gold. A phony who had no empathy for the average man, yet could spin a tale during his fireside chats that conned a nation into believing that he was one of them. This is a man that lied to Allies, promising to support their independence after the war, and without care handed them to Stalin. This man was in fact the very model on which the modern day US politician was created.
Click to expand...


It's a real toss up between FDR and Wilson.Had Wilson not passed the federal reserve act, it is likely FDR would have never been able to push his schemes in the first place. Needless to say, every progressive LOLberal president since the beginning of the 1900s was a piss poor lousy excuse for an American. No tthat many of the republican ones did better. But these critters were the vile filth of them all.


----------



## Full-Auto

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Im guilty.......Something about the left attacking my family for participating in the draft. As if Uncle Sam gave them a choice.....So while a member of the family dies in combat, all we here from the left is how my uncle killed babies, cut off ears...

Fuck liberals they deserve everything they have ever dished. The left just shot a guard.....

Will I care if that favor is returned...Not in the slightest...


----------



## California Girl

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Hate?  Hyperbole much?


----------



## Chris

What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican Party? I&#8217;ll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things, every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, &#8216;Liberal,&#8217; as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won&#8217;t work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor. 

-Lawrence O&#8217;Donnell Jr.


----------



## Decus

TakeAStepBack said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> StepBack -
> 
> I'm looking at a ranking of best and worst US presidents that has FDR ranked the 2nd best president of all time.
> 
> Truman ranks #7.
> 
> Wilson ranks #6.
> 
> Andrew Johnson is in #8.
> 
> Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It's worth thinking about, anyway....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was hands down the worst president in US history. New studies are beginning to wash away the myth of his presidency. This is a man that took a nation largely built around values of self-sufficiency and sold the idea that government (his of course) was the solution to all problems. He would provide a chicken in every pot, while seizing all the gold. A phony who had no empathy for the average man, yet could spin a tale during his fireside chats that conned a nation into believing that he was one of them. This is a man that lied to Allies, promising to support their independence after the war, and without care handed them to Stalin. This man was in fact the very model on which the modern day US politician was created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a real toss up between FDR and Wilson.Had Wilson not passed the federal reserve act, it is likely FDR would have never been able to push his schemes in the first place. Needless to say, every progressive LOLberal president since the beginning of the 1900s was a piss poor lousy excuse for an American. No tthat many of the republican ones did better. But these critters were the vile filth of them all.
Click to expand...


I have to respectfully disagree and say that it is not even close. FDR's ability to con the nation gave him four terms in office. Even if Wilson had stayed healthy, he couldn't have matched that level of artistry. Wilson was more manipulated than manipulator.


----------



## regent

The American people voted for FDR four times, count em, four times, and that record may last for as long as America lasts. This historians have always rated FDR in the top three presidents and in the last poll rated FDR first, top American president, none better. So both the people recognized a great president and so have the historians. But that has been a thorn in conservative and Repubublican behinds ever since, so Republicans have created histories and had other experts that disagree with the American people and the noted historians, but to no avail. In a 1982 poll of conservatives, the conservatives rated FDR third best president behind Lincoln and Washington. 
The Republicans trotted out their biggest gun against FDR, calling Social Security, communistic and even that didn't change things.


----------



## GoneBezerk

Well, let's see....

Liberals use the race card to win elections, claiming the GOP is the KKK.
Liberals use the age card to win elections, claiming the GOP is going to kill granny.
Liberals claim the GOP wants dirty water, air, etc. 
Liberals run election ads claiming Romney killed some woman with cancer.
Liberals support all forms of abortion and even promote abortion.
Liberals are typically anti-military.
Liberals like to tax working people and give that money to lazy ass people.
Liberals believe being against gay marriage makes one a homophobe. 

Liberals are just scum or stupid people, your pick.


----------



## GoneBezerk

FBR benefitted from a media that force fed the uneducated voter bullshit, from WWII and from the Great Depression making people reliant on the Govt.

He actually dragged out the economic recovery from the Great Depression but people were content with "daddy" taking care of them because they were a lazy society that ignored world wide threats until too late.



regent said:


> The American people voted for FDR four times, count em, four times, and that record may last for as long as America lasts. This historians have always rated FDR in the top three presidents and in the last poll rated FDR first, top American president, none better. So both the people recognized a great president and so have the historians. But that has been a thorn in conservative and Repubublican behinds ever since, so Republicans have created histories and had other experts that disagree with the American people and the noted historians, but to no avail. In a 1982 poll of conservatives, the conservatives rated FDR third best president behind Lincoln and Washington.
> The Republicans trotted out their biggest gun against FDR, calling Social Security, communistic and even that didn't change things.


----------



## Katzndogz

Chris said:


> What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican Party? Ill tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things, every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, Liberal, as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it wont work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.
> 
> -Lawrence ODonnell Jr.



That would be republicans.  But you knew that already.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

And FDR was still the worst president for the constitution of all time.


Stacking the deck in the SCOTUS to pass his unconstitutional legislation as one example of his dictator style roughshod he ran over the constitution and our system.

Most Americans dont even follow government. This board is a prime example. People read soundbites and then repeat them. So whether the american public believes it or not, they were duped by FDR.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

it's so much easier to fool a man than to get him to believe he has been fooled.


----------



## peach174

Social Security was a very good thing.
It was a supplement to help Seniors with their retirement.
You were suppose to save money yourself and SSI was to be added along with it. 
SSI was never untented for your complete monthly income like it has been turned into.
30 years after it was passed, Democratic President Lyndon Johnson opened up the surplus to pay for the Viet Nam War, a war that the people did not want.He knew that he could not raise the taxes to pay for it so he raided SSI.
It was for the workers of America. It was for their retirement, never for anything else, yet Dem's thought they could take this away because they thought it was their money not the retired people.
Then the IOU"s for SSI was always raided for other social programs and was never paid back.
Now there is not enough for the large amount of baby boomers, let alone for the future workers of America.

Democrats do this all the time. Start programs, then use that program to fund for other programs and none of it is paid for.
This is why we now have 119 trillion dollars in unfunded mandates.
I don't understand why any American could continue to vote for Dem's and still think that they are for you the people.
And yet the people of this nation keep voting for the Dem's thinking that they are for the people.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

social security was going to fail due to its moral hazard in the first place. it was a bad conscript ponzi scheme that will die before I ever see any of what Ive paid in.


----------



## GoneBezerk

Liberals in power today are bona fide scumbags because they keep spending money on entitlements and now want more with Obamacare, extended unemployment, etc when they know for a FACT that the system is going to blow up in due time.

They don't give a shit because they are living the high life in power in DC, throwing lavish parties on the taxpayer dime and some don't give a shit because their secret motive is to bring everything down to install their socialist dream.

Of course, idiots here wonder why we hate them....


----------



## Billo_Really

TakeAStepBack said:


> And presumably, you support Barack Obama. That's where I don't get the LOLberals. When Bush was writing up shit like the patriot act, the howling and moaning from the lolberals was loud and boisterous. I know, because i sided with them over it.
> 
> But, now it really is just a side issue. It's a passing "I'm against it" now that Obama extended the act and even added new civil liberty erosions like NDAA2012.
> 
> That's the part i dont get. Bush and his wars and his civil liberties erosions and oh the HUGE Maniti. But it's crickets and the occassional "I'm against those things" when it is brought into question now that Obama is the one dishing out the unconstitutional wars, etc...


It's not crickets!  Obama lost the left over a year and a half ago.  I personally withdrew my support for his policies about 18 months ago when it was clear that he was going to continue the neocon foreign policy agenda; not close GITMO; not investigate the former Administration for war crimes; not stop the wars; not fight for the public option in the healthcare bill; and a whole list of other things he's doing that are not leftist policies.

Don't you remember the former press secretary going off on the left at a press conference?  Saying that we had to give him (Obama) more time to do the things we wanted him to do.  That outburst was a direct result of Obama catching shit from the left and losing his base.  And looking back on it, we never were his base to begin with.

I'm not going to vote for him this time, but he will win in November.

BTW, those bills are not side issues.  They've effectively made our Constitution null and void and the sooner everyone realizes that, the sooner we can start getting a representative government back.


----------



## Decus

regent said:


> The American people voted for FDR four times, count em, four times, and *that record may last for as long as America lasts.* This historians have always rated FDR in the top three presidents and in the last poll rated FDR first, top American president, none better. So both the people recognized a great president and so have the historians. But that has been a thorn in conservative and Repubublican behinds ever since, so Republicans have created histories and had other experts that disagree with the American people and the noted historians, but to no avail. In a 1982 poll of conservatives, the conservatives rated FDR third best president behind Lincoln and Washington.
> The Republicans trotted out their biggest gun against FDR, calling Social Security, communistic and even that didn't change things.



You may have heard about term limits, which explains your bold prediction.

The myth was enhanced in the 50's. We were in a cold war. Civic studies was a required course and we needed heroes as role models. FDR couldn't have been luckier in terms of timing.


----------



## regent

Decus said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American people voted for FDR four times, count em, four times, and *that record may last for as long as America lasts.* This historians have always rated FDR in the top three presidents and in the last poll rated FDR first, top American president, none better. So both the people recognized a great president and so have the historians. But that has been a thorn in conservative and Repubublican behinds ever since, so Republicans have created histories and had other experts that disagree with the American people and the noted historians, but to no avail. In a 1982 poll of conservatives, the conservatives rated FDR third best president behind Lincoln and Washington.
> The Republicans trotted out their biggest gun against FDR, calling Social Security, communistic and even that didn't change things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may have heard about term limits, which explains your bold prediction.
> 
> The myth was enhanced in the 50's. We were in a cold war. Civic studies was a required course and we needed heroes as role models. FDR couldn't have been luckier in terms of timing.
Click to expand...


What myth? 
The first poll of historians took place in 1948 and FDR was rated third best. 
The first thing Republicans did when they got in power after the war was to amend the Constitution so that no one could run for a third term. That gave FDR a lock on that record, and the Republicans gave FDR that lock.   
Plenty of newspapers were against FDR, as were some radio pundits.  Father Coughlin, the Limbaugh of his time, lambasted FDR and his policies. There were many others, FDR did not have a free ride during those years, from corporations or business. 
In the Fifties America elected Ike as president, a war hero so where's the myth?


----------



## Decus

regent said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American people voted for FDR four times, count em, four times, and *that record may last for as long as America lasts.* This historians have always rated FDR in the top three presidents and in the last poll rated FDR first, top American president, none better. So both the people recognized a great president and so have the historians. But that has been a thorn in conservative and Repubublican behinds ever since, so Republicans have created histories and had other experts that disagree with the American people and the noted historians, but to no avail. In a 1982 poll of conservatives, the conservatives rated FDR third best president behind Lincoln and Washington.
> The Republicans trotted out their biggest gun against FDR, calling Social Security, communistic and even that didn't change things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may have heard about term limits, which explains your bold prediction.
> 
> The myth was enhanced in the 50's. We were in a cold war. Civic studies was a required course and we needed heroes as role models. FDR couldn't have been luckier in terms of timing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What myth?
> The first poll of historians took place in 1948 and FDR was rated third best.
> The first thing Republicans did when they got in power after the war was to amend the Constitution so that no one could run for a third term. That gave FDR a lock on that record, and the Republicans gave FDR that lock.
> Plenty of newspapers were against FDR, as were some radio pundits.  Father Coughlin, the Limbaugh of his time, lambasted FDR and his policies. There were many others, FDR did not have a free ride during those years, from corporations or business.
> In the Fifties America elected Ike as president, a war hero so where's the myth?
Click to expand...


The myth is that he was a great president. History books ignored the fact that this man assumed powers and gave away what was not his to give. His spending certainly contributed to prolonging the great depression. The danger of this type of presidency had been written about long before FDR.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."
 Alexander Fraser Tyler, 18th century Scottish historian, The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic


----------



## SniperFire

Liberals all think rape jokes are funny.


----------



## Fordsflylow

loinboy said:


> Once you sever the lines of communication, war begins soon after.



Right on...and it won't be purdy!


----------



## kaz

loinboy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals with the power of guns .
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does that mean?  Care to explain that one in more detail?  What liberals, what powers and with what guns?
Click to expand...


You don't even recognize what government is?




kaz said:


> are forcing us all to follow their views and values.


Give me 3 examples of liberals forcing their views on you.[/QUOTE]

It is immoral to indoctrinate our children in government schools

The welfare state is immoral as it fosters dependency

Social security is immoral as it makes every American a slave of government checks


----------



## kaz

SniperFire said:


> Liberals all think rape jokes are funny.



They also think rape victims are meal tickets


----------



## Fordsflylow

TakeAStepBack said:


> plt42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see there is any evidence of that at a theoertical level.
> 
> Some of the world's most succesful governments have been liberal.
> 
> In fact, I think you'd struggle to mount a case that conservatives have a better economi record in government that liberals. In any country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll give you a hint. No budget in almost four years. The ones offered by Obama were shot down unanimously. And that is just a taste of this administrations failure in the fiscal/economic realm.
Click to expand...


Actually, his budget was not even brought to the floor of the boner led house for debate let alone a vote, it was filibustered just like most everything else he's done.


----------



## Fordsflylow

peach174 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their economic theory's are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dunce, what's destructive is RW voodoo economics of "trickle down"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the Democrats spin on it.
> Republicans have always had the economic theory from the bottom up not from the top down.
> Trickle down is a lie. Pushed heavily by the main stream media and liberal journalists.
> Take a good look at our history and Repubs have always gotten the poor to become the middle class and the middle class to become the upper middle class and helps any American who wants to strive to become rich can achieve that goal.
> A good example to look at is, President Calvin Coolidge policies, who accomplished this.
Click to expand...


Trickle down is and has been reality since the days of reagan and you have yet to prove it isn't.


----------



## Fordsflylow

TakeAStepBack said:


> However, the progressive LOLberals just took away my right to due process. How is that for taking my freedom?



How did those lib's do that?


----------



## Joshuatree

> Why do people hate liberals?



I don't hate them, I just hate their corruption and dissoluteness.


----------



## LeftofLeft

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



I don't hate Liberals. I hate the thought of economic and social policies borrowed from failed societies being used to fundamentally transform America that will yield a select, finite wealthy elite and masses all on the name of "fairness". I would rather have a capitalist society with a strong middle class, equal opportunity for prosperity. Limited government and limited socialism are acceptable but government nor it's social programs should ever overtake American capitalism


----------



## BecauseIKnow

Because right wingers are idiots. You heard what that Texas right wing judge said today? He said the UN would invade Lubbock under Obamas permission to rebel against a civil war.


----------



## zeke

People hate liberals? What people? I think you mean that right wing partisan hacks hate liberals.
They are much easier to hate than lets say, independents. And the GOP needs someone to hate, blame and pass the buck for the stupid decisions and positions they take.

What the fuk would repugs do if not hate liberals? They don't govern very well. They seem rather short sighted and backwards thinking. Yea rethugs need hate like liberals need poor people. Each serves the needs of the party.


----------



## GoneBezerk

For real??!????! An INVASION by the UN into Lubbock TEXAS!!!!!

Get da gun and the dogs!

Now which one of Obamination's 57 states is this TEXAS?



BecauseIKnow said:


> Because right wingers are idiots. You heard what that Texas right wing judge said today? He said the UN would invade Lubbock under Obamas permission to rebel against a civil war.


----------



## GoneBezerk

We hate you because you're a big pile of shit.



zeke said:


> People hate liberals? What people? I think you mean that right wing partisan hacks hate liberals.
> They are much easier to hate than lets say, independents. And the GOP needs someone to hate, blame and pass the buck for the stupid decisions and positions they take.
> 
> What the fuk would repugs do if not hate liberals? They don't govern very well. They seem rather short sighted and backwards thinking. Yea rethugs need hate like liberals need poor people. Each serves the needs of the party.


----------



## GoneBezerk

Asswipe, he can't destroy the US overnight. 

We understand you're a domestic terrorist, but he needs to be subtle about his attacks on the US or else the US military and general public will stop him.



loinboy said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And presumably, you support Barack Obama. That's where I don't get the LOLberals. When Bush was writing up shit like the patriot act, the howling and moaning from the lolberals was loud and boisterous. I know, because i sided with them over it.
> 
> But, now it really is just a side issue. It's a passing "I'm against it" now that Obama extended the act and even added new civil liberty erosions like NDAA2012.
> 
> That's the part i dont get. Bush and his wars and his civil liberties erosions and oh the HUGE Maniti. But it's crickets and the occassional "I'm against those things" when it is brought into question now that Obama is the one dishing out the unconstitutional wars, etc...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not crickets!  Obama lost the left over a year and a half ago.  I personally withdrew my support for his policies about 18 months ago when it was clear that he was going to continue the neocon foreign policy agenda; not close GITMO; not investigate the former Administration for war crimes; not stop the wars; not fight for the public option in the healthcare bill; and a whole list of other things he's doing that are not leftist policies.
> 
> Don't you remember the former press secretary going off on the left at a press conference?  Saying that we had to give him (Obama) more time to do the things we wanted him to do.  That outburst was a direct result of Obama catching shit from the left and losing his base.  And looking back on it, we never were his base to begin with.
> 
> I'm not going to vote for him this time, but he will win in November.
> 
> BTW, those bills are not side issues.  They've effectively made our Constitution null and void and the sooner everyone realizes that, the sooner we can start getting a representative government back.
Click to expand...


----------



## regent

Decus said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may have heard about term limits, which explains your bold prediction.
> 
> The myth was enhanced in the 50's. We were in a cold war. Civic studies was a required course and we needed heroes as role models. FDR couldn't have been luckier in terms of timing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What myth?
> The first poll of historians took place in 1948 and FDR was rated third best.
> The first thing Republicans did when they got in power after the war was to amend the Constitution so that no one could run for a third term. That gave FDR a lock on that record, and the Republicans gave FDR that lock.
> Plenty of newspapers were against FDR, as were some radio pundits.  Father Coughlin, the Limbaugh of his time, lambasted FDR and his policies. There were many others, FDR did not have a free ride during those years, from corporations or business.
> In the Fifties America elected Ike as president, a war hero so where's the myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The myth is that he was a great president. History books ignored the fact that this man assumed powers and gave away what was not his to give. His spending certainly contributed to prolonging the great depression. The danger of this type of presidency had been written about long before FDR.
> 
> "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."
>  Alexander Fraser Tyler, 18th century Scottish historian, The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic
Click to expand...


History books have ignored nothing about FDR or his presidency, FDR  is one of the most  studied presidents we have. Book upon books have been written about FDR's time in office and by all sorts of historians. The bottom line however is they always vote FDR as one of the top three American presidents. Your quote by Tyler or the usual Republican party line opinions have nothing to do with the issue.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Chris said:


> What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican Party? Ill tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things, every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, Liberal, as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it wont work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.
> 
> -Lawrence ODonnell Jr.



hey Chris congratulations....Franco said your voice finally changed.....maybe now you will get a girlfriend......


----------



## Harry Dresden

GoneBezerk said:


> Well, let's see....
> 
> Liberals use the race card to win elections, claiming the GOP is the KKK.
> Liberals use the age card to win elections, claiming the GOP is going to kill granny.
> Liberals claim the GOP wants dirty water, air, etc.
> Liberals run election ads claiming Romney killed some woman with cancer.
> Liberals support all forms of abortion and even promote abortion.
> Liberals are typically anti-military.
> Liberals like to tax working people and give that money to lazy ass people.
> Liberals believe being against gay marriage makes one a homophobe.
> 
> Liberals are just scum or stupid people, your pick.



i think you have gone berserk......


----------



## jillian

Harry Dresden said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see....
> 
> Liberals use the race card to win elections, claiming the GOP is the KKK.
> Liberals use the age card to win elections, claiming the GOP is going to kill granny.
> Liberals claim the GOP wants dirty water, air, etc.
> Liberals run election ads claiming Romney killed some woman with cancer.
> Liberals support all forms of abortion and even promote abortion.
> Liberals are typically anti-military.
> Liberals like to tax working people and give that money to lazy ass people.
> Liberals believe being against gay marriage makes one a homophobe.
> 
> Liberals are just scum or stupid people, your pick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think you have gone berserk......
Click to expand...


He's just a garden variety moron


----------



## Billo_Really

GoneBezerk said:


> Asswipe, he can't destroy the US overnight.
> 
> We understand you're a domestic terrorist, but he needs to be subtle about his attacks on the US or else the US military and general public will stop him.


WTF are you talking about?  Fuckin' moron!


----------



## Billo_Really

kaz said:


> You don't even recognize what government is?


It's not a liberal government.

  And it's policies are definately not liberal.




kaz said:


> It is immoral to indoctrinate our children in government schools


What is being indoctrinated and why do you think all government schools are liberal?




kaz said:


> The welfare state is immoral as it fosters dependency


For some it does, for others it doesn't.  I'm currently trying to get on welfare and I've been working all my life.  And if I do get it, it's not going to stop me from sending out resume's.  When I don't have a job, I feel like a fish out of water.  That's just one example to prove your logic needs some revisions.  

And how's that being forced on people?  People on welfare have to apply for it.  Which means they want it.  So it's not being forced on them.  And if you're not on welfare, then it's not being forced on you either.  And if you simply don't like your tax dollars going to fund that, well, I don't like my tax dollars going to fund your bullshit wars.




kaz said:


> Social security is immoral as it makes every American a slave of government checks


After they're no longer able to hold a job.  And don't they get their own money back?  Their payments are proportional to what they paid in, during the years they worked.

Don't talk to me about forcing ideology's on others after what you people did during the debt ceiling debates, all these wasted efforts to stop abortion and this deep-seated hatred you have for brown people.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Why do people hate Liberals?



People, no  some conservatives, yes.


----------



## Sactowndog

Truthseeker420 said:


> I don't want to get into detail because then I would be accused of being hateful toward cons. But while liberals view the world with shades of gray, conservatives view the world as black vs white,us vs them,good vs evil.



To the extent conservatism is defined as social conservatives I would agree with you.  But for many libertarian conservatives this does not apply at all.  Conservatism has changed greatly from the our founders previous small government types that included small government as it related to the military and personnel issues.


----------



## Bfgrn

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Saigon, there have been numerous studies on conservatism that explain their fear based belief system, their love of authoritarian leaders, their worship of materialism, the opulent and their utter disdain for anyone who isn't wealthy.

But it is neither 'arrogance or conceit'. When you understand how fear and insecurity manifest in human behavior, it is much easier to understand.

Among the most critical authors of how conservatism has become so destructive and a threat to democracy is John Dean, who was legal counsel to Richard M. Nixon, and a close friend of the late Republican Senator Barry Goldwater. Goldwater, was extremely concerned about the direction conservatism had taken late in his life. Dean's book, "Conservatives Without Conscience" was started as a collaborative effort with Goldwater.  Dean shared the senator&#8217;s dislike of the &#8220;so-called social conservatives&#8221; who have risen to prominence within Republican ranks over the past several decades, and the pair planned a book for which they would talk &#8220;with people like Chuck Colson, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell&#8221; and &#8220;attempt to understand their strident and intolerant politics.&#8221;

The project was cut short by Goldwater&#8217;s death in 1998, but Dean remained dedicated to unmasking what he sees as the new and dangerous breed of &#8220;tough, coldblooded, ruthless authoritarians&#8221; who have &#8220;co-opted&#8221; conservatism. 

Here is a long list of Dean's writing with links.
FindLaw's Writ | John Dean

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a great article about conservatism that appeared in Psychology Today

The Ideological Animal

Excerpt:

"All people are born alike&#8212;except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



This is a fantastic question and I've noticed the same thing since joining up. The one that bugs me the most is the constantly stereotyping of Liberals as sitting around, taking hand outs, not working, killing babies, wanting to take rich people's money, etc. It gets old. It is like they don't care what liberals stand for or why they choose that path nor do they want to know. They just want to rip them to shreds. I really don't care. I can take the criticism. It just makes the person doing it looks stupid. However, I work hard, have never taken anything from the Government, live within my means and am Liberal on most issues.

Oh well, haters gotta hate I guess.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Godboy said:


> Well for starters, they call republicans racist if they disagree with obama. That alone makes them hatable. Theres many reasons to hate liberals though.



Is that so? I've never called anyone a racist for disagreeing with Obama. What other reasons are there to hate Liberals?

I don't hate Conservatives.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Mr.Nick said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Liberals" are NOT liberals........ They're fascist authoritarians, and in some cases totalitarian...
> 
> Anyone who advocates bigger government and loyalty to government is absolutely not liberal...
> 
> Real classical liberals founded this country in response to authoritarian, totalitarian and theocratic governments across the pond.....
> 
> Now the same mess is being created here by the so called "liberals."
> 
> I hate progressives because they're my antithesis.....They're a bunch of envious fucks who want government to take care of them via STEALING from anyone who has more then them.
> 
> How the fuck can one be liberal and look to government to provide for them???
Click to expand...


None of this is true. I know a lot of liberals including myself and I don't envy anyone or take anything from the Government or want the Government to provide for me or to steal from those that have more.

I do want the Government to provide for those who need it. I don't but many do and I believe in a strong social safety net to provide for them. I believe that those who can work, should work and those that can't should get help. 

If that makes me hateable, well so be it. I consider it being compassionate for others.

Oh, and I also believe, if you can afford to do so, give to charity as much as you can and volunteer as well.

A lot of Liberals/Progressives I know feel the same.


----------



## francoHFW

"Because A-hole Pubs have been demonizing them since Newt's talking point BS in the late 80's, and Pub dupes are brainwashed functional morons?


----------



## Wolfsister77

jillian said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see....
> 
> Liberals use the race card to win elections, claiming the GOP is the KKK.
> Liberals use the age card to win elections, claiming the GOP is going to kill granny.
> Liberals claim the GOP wants dirty water, air, etc.
> Liberals run election ads claiming Romney killed some woman with cancer.
> Liberals support all forms of abortion and even promote abortion.
> Liberals are typically anti-military.
> Liberals like to tax working people and give that money to lazy ass people.
> Liberals believe being against gay marriage makes one a homophobe.
> 
> Liberals are just scum or stupid people, your pick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think you have gone berserk......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just a garden variety moron
Click to expand...


And wrong on so many levels.


----------



## Saigon

Wolfsister77 said:


> This is a fantastic question and I've noticed the same thing since joining up. The one that bugs me the most is the constantly stereotyping of Liberals as sitting around, taking hand outs, not working, killing babies, wanting to take rich people's money, etc. It gets old. It is like they don't care what liberals stand for or why they choose that path nor do they want to know. They just want to rip them to shreds. I really don't care. I can take the criticism. It just makes the person doing it looks stupid. However, I work hard, have never taken anything from the Government, live within my means and am Liberal on most issues.
> 
> Oh well, haters gotta hate I guess.



My thoughts exatly!

Most conservatives here probably consider me a liberal - and yet I own my own business, pay my taxes, and have never been on welfare a day in my life. 

I'm an entrepreneur! 

And the funny thing is - you know a lot of more conservative posters are on welfare themselves!


----------



## Saigon

LeftofLeft said:


> I don't hate Liberals. I hate the thought of economic and social policies borrowed from failed societies being used to fundamentally transform America that will yield a select, finite wealthy elite and masses all on the name of "fairness". I would rather have a capitalist society with a strong middle class, equal opportunity for prosperity. Limited government and limited socialism are acceptable but government nor it's social programs should ever overtake American capitalism



I think most liberals would agree with that - certainly I do!

Of course, the US already has a select, finite elite - more so than any other democracy on earth. Liberalism didn't create that.


----------



## zonly1

saigon said:


> zonly1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> well since you won't link your explanation .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> horseshoe theory - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


bfd


----------



## bripat9643

Saigon said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate Liberals. I hate the thought of economic and social policies borrowed from failed societies being used to fundamentally transform America that will yield a select, finite wealthy elite and masses all on the name of "fairness". I would rather have a capitalist society with a strong middle class, equal opportunity for prosperity. Limited government and limited socialism are acceptable but government nor it's social programs should ever overtake American capitalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think most liberals would agree with that - certainly I do!
Click to expand...


No they don't.  They claim they do, but then they continually vote for those failed policies.



Saigon said:


> Of course, the US already has a select, finite elite - more so than any other democracy on earth. Liberalism didn't create that.



Wrong.  The 90% of the wealthy are self made.  They weren't born into wealth.  But those who want to create a true class structure in the U.S. claim the wealthy were born into it.


----------



## bripat9643

Wolfsister77 said:


> This is a fantastic question and I've noticed the same thing since joining up. The one that bugs me the most is the constantly stereotyping of Liberals as sitting around, taking hand outs, not working, killing babies, wanting to take rich people's money, etc.



It's not a stereotype.  It's a fact demonstrated daily in this forum.



Wolfsister77 said:


> It gets old. It is like they don't care what liberals stand for or why they choose that path nor do they want to know. They just want to rip them to shreds. I really don't care. I can take the criticism. It just makes the person doing it looks stupid. However, I work hard, have never taken anything from the Government, live within my means and am Liberal on most issues.
> 
> Oh well, haters gotta hate I guess.



Why should I care why looters and moochers want to loot and mooch?


----------



## Cowman

Because we're liberals. They hate liberals because they're liberals!

I live around and work with conservatives every day of my life. If I had half the contempt for those conservatives that they often seem to have for me, my life would be very unpleasant.

My entire family are hardcore conservatives. I have to put up with some of them thinking I have a mental disorder because I'm a liberal(seen them with that Michael Savage book... but really it's not only him that believes liberalism is a mental disorder).

I just roll my eyes and carry on. It's their burden to bear, not mine.


----------



## Fordsflylow

Saigon said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a fantastic question and I've noticed the same thing since joining up. The one that bugs me the most is the constantly stereotyping of Liberals as sitting around, taking hand outs, not working, killing babies, wanting to take rich people's money, etc. It gets old. It is like they don't care what liberals stand for or why they choose that path nor do they want to know. They just want to rip them to shreds. I really don't care. I can take the criticism. It just makes the person doing it looks stupid. However, I work hard, have never taken anything from the Government, live within my means and am Liberal on most issues.
> 
> Oh well, haters gotta hate I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My thoughts exatly!
> 
> Most conservatives here probably consider me a liberal - and yet I own my own business, pay my taxes, and have never been on welfare a day in my life.
> 
> I'm an entrepreneur!
> 
> And the funny thing is - you know a lot of more conservative posters are on welfare themselves!
Click to expand...


I too own my own business, pay taxes (much more than romney in % btw), and have been on food stamps once and was thankful it was there when I needed it, and don't collect unemployment even though my business is seasonal and I am unemployed 4 months out of each year. I consider myself an independent.  I am somewhat conservative on several issues but tend to lean left on most.

You are exactly right that many con's are in fact recipients of welfare as I know of many personally.  What is amazing to me is they vote strictly con AND against their own seeming interests.  Makes no sense but then most the con posters here at USMB makes no sense so....


----------



## OODA_Loop

Fordsflylow said:


> You are exactly right that many con's are in fact recipients of welfare as I know of many personally.



Come on now.


----------



## Fordsflylow

OODA_Loop said:


> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are exactly right that many con's are in fact recipients of welfare as I know of many personally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on now.
Click to expand...


That's a fact jack!  Another fact is many of those same con's are SUPPOSEDLY Christian and hate other poor folks first and foremost while supporting the con party and those who need no support.  At least that is what they are ultimately saying every damn time I hear em.  It is simply amazing to me!!


----------



## Barb

SniperFire said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you keep posting that suggests Stalin, Truman, the Dalai Lama and Joe Liebermann are on the same political team, then yes you are.
> 
> At the point you realise that Hitler (extreme right) has more in common with Stalin (extreme left) than either do with Obama or Romney, then you won't be proving my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the fifth time on this board - the only difference between Stalin and Hitler were THEIR FUCKING MUSTACHE....
> 
> I would love for all you intelligent motherfuckers to cite examples where they were somehow different... Oh yeah that is right only pop culture and academics attempt to differentiate the two...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Nazi's even stole the Communist's advertising program, right down to the poster themes and color.
Click to expand...


The Nazi's stole our soap commercials.


----------



## Fordsflylow

Hey bripat, you ever going to answer my question on #114?


----------



## OODA_Loop

Fordsflylow said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are exactly right that many con's are in fact recipients of welfare as I know of many personally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a fact jack!  Another fact is many of those same con's are SUPPOSEDLY Christian and hate other poor folks first and foremost while supporting the con party and those who need no support.  At least that is what they are ultimately saying every damn time I hear em.  It is simply amazing to me!!
Click to expand...


Tough time believing you know a group of poor, Christian conservatives that are on welfare who espouse they hate the poor.


----------



## Saigon

OODA_Loop said:


> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are exactly right that many con's are in fact recipients of welfare as I know of many personally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on now.
Click to expand...


Someone the other day posted a graphic showing that states voting GOP tend to receive more welfare than those voting Dem. 

I wouldn't swear to its legitimacy - but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was correct.


----------



## Fordsflylow

OODA_Loop said:


> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a fact jack!  Another fact is many of those same con's are SUPPOSEDLY Christian and hate other poor folks first and foremost while supporting the con party and those who need no support.  At least that is what they are ultimately saying every damn time I hear em.  It is simply amazing to me!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tough time believing you know a group of poor, Christian conservatives that are on welfare who espouse they hate the poor.
Click to expand...


I have a tough time with it too.  You're not alone!  Which is why with several of them I have no choice but to assume the race card fits in somewhere - ya think!?!

I also have a hard time believing most if not all the HATE and bs spewed by the con lovers at USMB but.....


----------



## GreatDay

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Here it is in nutshell:

It is only natural that parents do all they can for their children, however as wealth accumulates this presents a threat to democracy. The dangers of inherited wealth to our economy are not unlike monarchy to the health of any nation, when power is derived from birthright rather than ones labor it is more often foolishly applied. As more and more of our economy becomes inherited wealth it becomes more of a target for con men and less a tool for innovators.  The worlds financial power has been diverted from improving the human condition into money making schemes designed to enrich those who create them.


----------



## Fordsflylow

Saigon said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are exactly right that many con's are in fact recipients of welfare as I know of many personally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone the other day posted a graphic showing that states voting GOP tend to receive more welfare than those voting Dem.
> 
> I wouldn't swear to its legitimacy - but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was correct.
Click to expand...


Look at the great state of Mississippi as just one example - end of story.


----------



## Fordsflylow

GreatDay said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is in nutshell:
> 
> It is only natural that parents do all they can for their children, however as wealth accumulates this presents a threat to democracy. The dangers of inherited wealth to our economy are not unlike monarchy to the health of any nation, when power is derived from birthright rather than ones labor it is more often foolishly applied. As more and more of our economy becomes inherited wealth it becomes more of a target for con men and less a tool for innovators.  The worlds financial power has been diverted from improving the human condition into money making schemes designed to enrich those who create them.
Click to expand...


That sir was perfect and spot on imho.


----------



## OODA_Loop

GreatDay said:


> It is only natural that parents do all they can for their children, however as wealth accumulates this presents a threat to democracy. The dangers of inherited wealth to our economy are not unlike monarchy to the health of any nation, when power is derived from birthright rather than ones labor it is more often foolishly applied. As more and more of our economy becomes inherited wealth it becomes more of a target for con men and less a tool for innovators.  The worlds financial power has been diverted from improving the human condition into money making schemes designed to enrich those who create them.



Da Comrade. Da.

Government must sieze assets upon death.

For good of human condition.


----------



## Fordsflylow

OODA_Loop said:


> GreatDay said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only natural that parents do all they can for their children, however as wealth accumulates this presents a threat to democracy. The dangers of inherited wealth to our economy are not unlike monarchy to the health of any nation, when power is derived from birthright rather than ones labor it is more often foolishly applied. As more and more of our economy becomes inherited wealth it becomes more of a target for con men and less a tool for innovators.  The worlds financial power has been diverted from improving the human condition into money making schemes designed to enrich those who create them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Da Comrade. Da.
> 
> Government must sieze assets upon death.
> 
> For good of human condition.
Click to expand...


Is the projected $400,000,000.00 (that's $400 milion btw) the Koch bro's are going to spend on getting con's elected good for the country?  How so?  Remember now, they inherited $50 billion from dada and are also among the same 0.1% as is romney.


----------



## Barb

Chris said:


> What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican Party? Ill tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things, every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, Liberal, as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it wont work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.
> 
> -Lawrence ODonnell Jr.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Fordsflylow said:


> Is the projected $400,000,000.00 (that's $400 milion btw) the Koch bro's are going to spend on getting con's elected good for the country?




For the businesses and employees that get the 400mil in business revenue and the taxes they pay...yes indeed.


----------



## editec

Many people (most, would actually be my guess) approach politics as though it was a football game.

They think in terms of our team versus their team.

The sad part of this approach is that the good of the nation is forgotten in favor of what is good for their TEAM.

As to the nastiness we see toward people with political differences?

Well in an envronment like this, weak people, people who need an ego boost because, let's face it, they know they are losers...insult those they disagree with because they can get away with it.

It's pathetic, really.


----------



## Fordsflylow

OODA_Loop said:


> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the projected $400,000,000.00 (that's $400 milion btw) the Koch bro's are going to spend on getting con's elected good for the country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the businesses and employees that get the 400mil in business revenue and the taxes they pay...yes indeed.
Click to expand...


I tend to look at the broad/big picture.  You know, like the facts that a relative few rich fucking assholes are trying to BUY this election and are funding only one side - the con side.  Which makes it easy to assume that they expect something in return for their investments.  What do you think that might be?


----------



## OODA_Loop

editec said:


> Many people (most, would actually be my guess) approach politics as though it was a football game.
> 
> They think in terms of our team versus their team.
> 
> The sad part of this approach is that the good of the nation is forgotten in favor of what is good for their TEAM.
> 
> As to the nastiness we see toward people with political differences?
> 
> Well in an envronment like this, weak people, people who need an ego boost because, let's face it, they know they are losers...insult those they disagree with because they can get away with it.
> 
> It's pathetic, really.



*"'We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us"  *

-Barack Obama


----------



## Fordsflylow

Don't answer questions oodaloop?


----------



## OODA_Loop

Fordsflylow said:


> I tend to look at the broad/big picture.  You know, like the facts that a relative few rich fucking assholes are trying to BUY this election and are funding only one side - the con side.  Which makes it easy to assume that they expect something in return for their investments.  What do you think that might be?



The richest man and the poorest man have but one vote.


----------



## Saigon

editec said:


> Many people (most, would actually be my guess) approach politics as though it was a football game.
> 
> They think in terms of our team versus their team.
> 
> The sad part of this approach is that the good of the nation is forgotten in favor of what is good for their TEAM.
> 
> As to the nastiness we see toward people with political differences?
> 
> Well in an envronment like this, weak people, people who need an ego boost because, let's face it, they know they are losers...insult those they disagree with because they can get away with it.
> 
> It's pathetic, really.



This really nails it. 

And the key point is that the country suffers. 

In an ideal world neither posters nor politicians would neglect or mock ideas that other political parties put forward - they would judge them on their merit. 

I don't recall the last time I heard a politician react to idea from another party with "Excellent. We totally support the X Party on this one."


----------



## Billo_Really

Saigon said:


> This really nails it.
> 
> And the key point is that the country suffers.
> 
> In an ideal world neither posters nor politicians would neglect or mock ideas that other political parties put forward - they would judge them on their merit.
> 
> I don't recall the last time I heard a politician react to idea from another party with "Excellent. We totally support the X Party on this one."


And the thing that doesn't seem to be too apparent for the right, is that for me, when I see someone on "their side" actually speak their mind and not parrot the party line, that makes me want to support them.

Like during the campaign at that republican town hall with John McCain and that old lady called Obama a "muslim" and she "didn't trust" him.  McCain grabbed back the microphone and told her, "No, he's not a muslim.  We just  have different views on how to run the country".

At that point, every issue I had with McCain and taken a step back and I couldn't help admire his moment of clarity.  People who can stand up and speak from the heart, will always get respect, irregardless of what political party they are aligned with.


----------



## Saigon

I admired McCain for that too. I thought it showed integrity, and I also think he may have been shocked by quite how extreme the right wing of the GOP had become. 

We also had a situation here in Finland recently over retirement ages where a right wing politician told reporters that we couldn't afford this to be a partisan issue, and met with left wing leaders behind closed doors to try to find a common solution.

To some extent, this may have been done in the US with TARP as well, I think. 

Parties should be able to work together when the situation warrants it, and certainly posters should be able to agree on whole host of issues without needing to resort to "typical liberal thinking" garbage.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Wolfsister77 said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well for starters, they call republicans racist if they disagree with obama. That alone makes them hatable. Theres many reasons to hate liberals though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Is that so? *I've never called anyone a racist for disagreeing with Obama. What other reasons are there to hate Liberals?
> 
> I don't hate Conservatives.
Click to expand...


yea.....i have been called that right here in this forum......i dont care for MANY of his policies....i was told its because i dont want a black guy in the WH.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

francoHFW said:


> "Because A-hole Pubs have been demonizing them since Newt's talking point BS in the late 80's, and Pub dupes are brainwashed functional morons?



shut the fuck up Frankie....your one of the "Liberals" here who say you dont want a black guy in the White House if you say something about Obama....


----------



## Harry Dresden

bripat9643 said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a fantastic question and I've noticed the same thing since joining up. The one that bugs me the most is the constantly stereotyping of Liberals as sitting around, taking hand outs, not working, killing babies, wanting to take rich people's money, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a stereotype.  It's a fact demonstrated daily in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It gets old. It is like they don't care what liberals stand for or why they choose that path nor do they want to know. They just want to rip them to shreds. I really don't care. I can take the criticism. It just makes the person doing it looks stupid. However, I work hard, have never taken anything from the Government, live within my means and am Liberal on most issues.
> 
> Oh well, haters gotta hate I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I care why looters and moochers want to loot and mooch?
Click to expand...


*It's not a stereotype.  It's a fact demonstrated daily in this forum.*

yes it is a stereotype Bri.....i work with a lot of Liberals who detest people who do just that.....but what i notice in this forum is NONE of these "Liberals" ever say something to Dean when he does his usual stereotyping of the right .....some of them thank the guy then go into threads like this and criticize the "righties"  for stereotyping the left....


----------



## Cowman

OODA_Loop said:


> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to look at the broad/big picture.  You know, like the facts that a relative few rich fucking assholes are trying to BUY this election and are funding only one side - the con side.  Which makes it easy to assume that they expect something in return for their investments.  What do you think that might be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The richest man and the poorest man have but one vote.
Click to expand...


The richest man and the poorest man do not have the same capabilities to influence politics. The rich man has infinitely more avenues, with his money.


----------



## bripat9643

Cowman said:


> The richest man and the poorest man do not have the same capabilities to influence politics. The rich man has infinitely more avenues, with his money.




So? Why should a worthless bum have the ability to influence politicians?  You might was well complain that rich people have more money than poor people.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



I don't hate "liberals" I hate progressives...............

I am a liberal - a classical liberal....

So what are you progressives progressing to anyways? considering you're pretty much fascists.....


----------



## Saigon

Mr.Nick said:


> So what are you progressives progressing to anyways? considering you're pretty much fascists.....



This really ia just childish, Nick.

If you don't know what these terms mean - and you don't - why use them?


----------



## Saigon

bripat9643 said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The richest man and the poorest man do not have the same capabilities to influence politics. The rich man has infinitely more avenues, with his money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So? Why should a worthless bum have the ability to influence politicians?  You might was well complain that rich people have more money than poor people.
Click to expand...


Who do you equate "poor" with "worthless bum". 

I assure you - some of the most honest and hardest working Americans are NOT rich. 

You really sound like someone who has never worked a day in your life...


----------



## Harry Dresden

Fordsflylow said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the projected $400,000,000.00 (that's $400 milion btw) the Koch bro's are going to spend on getting con's elected good for the country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the businesses and employees that get the 400mil in business revenue and the taxes they pay...yes indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tend to look at the broad/big picture.  You know, like the facts that a relative few rich fucking assholes are trying to BUY this election and are funding only one side - the con side.  Which makes it easy to assume that they expect something in return for their investments.  What do you think that might be?
Click to expand...


what about the rich fucking assholes who fund only the Liberal side?....dont you think they want something in return?......what do you think it might be?.....the trouble with many people here is they think the real rich Democrats are different than the real rich Conservatives.....when push comes to shove...see who they side with....the people or themselves.....rich people will side with other rich people because they have something in common.....its called Money.....


----------



## Mr.Nick

Saigon said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what are you progressives progressing to anyways? considering you're pretty much fascists.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This really ia just childish, Nick.
> 
> If you don't know what these terms mean - and you don't - why use them?
Click to expand...


Well it is certainly a valid question - you talk about progress - really so what is the goal??

It really shows how fucking dumb you are....

You know the idea of progress is to move forward - but forward to where??


----------



## Saigon

Mr Nick - 

No, I am not "fucking dumb" - I just understand what the words mean. And you don't. 

Let's be clear here - you are using words that you do not know the meaning of. 

"Fascism" a right wing ideology, and "progressive" is left or centre left. 

Saying one is pretty much the other is saying that black is pretty much white.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Harry Dresden said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well for starters, they call republicans racist if they disagree with obama. That alone makes them hatable. Theres many reasons to hate liberals though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Is that so? *I've never called anyone a racist for disagreeing with Obama. What other reasons are there to hate Liberals?
> 
> I don't hate Conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yea.....i have been called that right here in this forum......i dont care for MANY of his policies....i was told its because i dont want a black guy in the WH.....
Click to expand...

 
Well, I would never say that and I'm willing to bet most liberals wouldn't either. Sadly, some would but it isn't right.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Harry Dresden said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a fantastic question and I've noticed the same thing since joining up. The one that bugs me the most is the constantly stereotyping of Liberals as sitting around, taking hand outs, not working, killing babies, wanting to take rich people's money, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a stereotype. It's a fact demonstrated daily in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It gets old. It is like they don't care what liberals stand for or why they choose that path nor do they want to know. They just want to rip them to shreds. I really don't care. I can take the criticism. It just makes the person doing it looks stupid. However, I work hard, have never taken anything from the Government, live within my means and am Liberal on most issues.
> 
> Oh well, haters gotta hate I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I care why looters and moochers want to loot and mooch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's not a stereotype. It's a fact demonstrated daily in this forum.*
> 
> yes it is a stereotype Bri.....i work with a lot of Liberals who detest people who do just that.....but what i notice in this forum is NONE of these "Liberals" ever say something to Dean when he does his usual stereotyping of the right .....some of them thank the guy then go into threads like this and criticize the "righties" for stereotyping the left....
Click to expand...

 
Thanks for agreeing it is a stereotype and wrong. I think it is wrong for Liberals to stereotype as well. What good does it do?


----------



## regent

If Jefferson's Declaration of Independence had never been written, how would today's Americans respond, to the principles he put in that document? Seems we have put some of our principles on the sacred shelf and extol them as American, but many find them repulsive in practice. But then again maybe the Declaration was, as many say, just propaganda, for the not-too-bright Americans.


----------



## American_Jihad

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation; 
augmenting primitive feelings of envy; 
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

The roots of liberalism  and its associated madness  can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind, he says. When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.

Why do people hate liberals?


----------



## bripat9643

Harry Dresden said:


> *It's not a stereotype.  It's a fact demonstrated daily in this forum.*
> 
> yes it is a stereotype Bri.....i work with a lot of Liberals who detest people who do just that.....but what i notice in this forum is NONE of these "Liberals" ever say something to Dean when he does his usual stereotyping of the right .....some of them thank the guy then go into threads like this and criticize the "righties"  for stereotyping the left....



I've never met any such liberals.  They'll defend moochers and looters until their last breath.


----------



## HUGGY

*Why do people hate Liberals? *

Because Newt Gingrich told them to.  But that is using the term "people" loosely.  Are the walking dead really people?


----------



## bripat9643

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Why should a worthless bum have the ability to influence politicians?  You might was well complain that rich people have more money than poor people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you equate "poor" with "worthless bum".
> 
> I assure you - some of the most honest and hardest working Americans are NOT rich.
> 
> You really sound like someone who has never worked a day in your life...
Click to expand...


Hard working Americans are almost never poor.  If you work hard at your job, almost anyone can make a decent living within a few years.  Only alcoholics and other reprobates remain poor their entire lives.


----------



## hjmick

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of .
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



And yet you see no "hatred and contempt" for conservatives...

Douchenoodle...


----------



## Harry Dresden

Wolfsister77 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a stereotype. It's a fact demonstrated daily in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I care why looters and moochers want to loot and mooch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It's not a stereotype. It's a fact demonstrated daily in this forum.*
> 
> yes it is a stereotype Bri.....i work with a lot of Liberals who detest people who do just that.....but what i notice in this forum is NONE of these "Liberals" ever say something to Dean when he does his usual stereotyping of the right .....some of them thank the guy then go into threads like this and criticize the "righties" for stereotyping the left....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for agreeing it is a stereotype and wrong. I think it is wrong for Liberals to stereotype as well. What good does it do?
Click to expand...


well Dean is not only a major stereotyper ....he is also one of the ones who say..... "its because Obama is black that your against him...what else could it be?"......never mind you might not like a policy or two....


----------



## uscitizen

Why do people hate Liberals?

One big reason is becuase they are programmed to.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Harry Dresden said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's not a stereotype. It's a fact demonstrated daily in this forum.*
> 
> yes it is a stereotype Bri.....i work with a lot of Liberals who detest people who do just that.....but what i notice in this forum is NONE of these "Liberals" ever say something to Dean when he does his usual stereotyping of the right .....some of them thank the guy then go into threads like this and criticize the "righties" for stereotyping the left....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for agreeing it is a stereotype and wrong. I think it is wrong for Liberals to stereotype as well. What good does it do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well Dean is not only a major stereotyper ....he is also one of the ones who say..... "its because Obama is black that your against him...what else could it be?"......never mind you might not like a policy or two....
Click to expand...

 
Well, I don't agree with that. It doesn't help the liberal agenda.


----------



## Harry Dresden

bripat9643 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's not a stereotype.  It's a fact demonstrated daily in this forum.*
> 
> yes it is a stereotype Bri.....i work with a lot of Liberals who detest people who do just that.....but what i notice in this forum is NONE of these "Liberals" ever say something to Dean when he does his usual stereotyping of the right .....some of them thank the guy then go into threads like this and criticize the "righties"  for stereotyping the left....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never met any such liberals.  They'll defend moochers and looters until their last breath.
Click to expand...


then you dont know very many Liberals.....the farther Left they are...your right.....the more towards the Center they are,they dont like "Moochers" any more than the next guy....


----------



## Saigon

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Why should a worthless bum have the ability to influence politicians?  You might was well complain that rich people have more money than poor people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you equate "poor" with "worthless bum".
> 
> I assure you - some of the most honest and hardest working Americans are NOT rich.
> 
> You really sound like someone who has never worked a day in your life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hard working Americans are almost never poor.  If you work hard at your job, almost anyone can make a decent living within a few years.  Only alcoholics and other reprobates remain poor their entire lives.
Click to expand...


If this was 1967 I'd agree with you. 

But in 201 2 it can and has been statisically proven that economic mobility in the US is all but dead.

Working your way up is a myth that went out with Reagan.


----------



## American_Jihad

bripat9643 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's not a stereotype.  It's a fact demonstrated daily in this forum.*
> 
> yes it is a stereotype Bri.....i work with a lot of Liberals who detest people who do just that.....but what i notice in this forum is NONE of these "Liberals" ever say something to Dean when he does his usual stereotyping of the right .....some of them thank the guy then go into threads like this and criticize the "righties"  for stereotyping the left....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never met any such liberals.  They'll defend moochers and looters until their last breath.
Click to expand...


Even after losing 7 states under his watch...​[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws]Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## rightwinger

Liberals founded this country

What have conservatives done?


----------



## American_Jihad

rightwinger said:


> Liberals founded this country
> 
> What have conservatives done?







You can use this pic in almost every liberal post...lol​
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4rfiNFJUh8]Perry Como - Dream On Little Dreamer - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## HUGGY

rightwinger said:


> Liberals founded this country
> 
> What have conservatives done?



With few exceptions..Ike..for one..  they have shit on the country and stolen everthing they could get their slimey hands on behind the chaos of war and fear.


----------



## Harry Dresden

rightwinger said:


> Liberals founded this country
> 
> What have conservatives done?



how many times are you going to bring this up?...........and how many times are you going to be told Liberal/Conservative in those days may not have meant as much as it seems to today....they both had a common goal.....they wanted to be free of the British.....the Colonist who were against them were here,but were British at heart obviously....


----------



## Harry Dresden

HUGGY said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals founded this country
> 
> What have conservatives done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With few exceptions..Ike..for one..  they have shit on the country and stolen everthing they could get their slimey hands on behind the chaos of war and fear.
Click to expand...


and yet i keep seeing stuff saying the majority of the wars this Country has been in was under Democratic leadership......


----------



## Harry Dresden

uscitizen said:


> Why do people hate Liberals?
> 
> One big reason is becuase they are programmed to.



is that the same reason you see so many Liberals here who hate Conservatives?....


----------



## rightwinger

Harry Dresden said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals founded this country
> 
> What have conservatives done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how many times are you going to bring this up?...........and how many times are you going to be told Liberal/Conservative in those days may not have meant as much as it seems to today....they both had a common goal.....they wanted to be free of the British.....the Colonist who were against them were here,but were British at heart obviously....
Click to expand...


Nonsense

Liberals and conservatives meant even more than today. The conservatives of the day were Tories who supported the crown. Liberals had this strange notion of all men being created equal


----------



## amrchaos

Don't the op mean

"Why do people hate liberals and conservatives?"


Answer, because they have all the power, damn it!!


----------



## BecauseIKnow

amrchaos said:


> Don't the op mean
> 
> "Why do people hate liberals and conservatives?"
> 
> 
> Answer, because they have all the power, damn it!!



Lol


----------



## rightwinger

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you equate "poor" with "worthless bum".
> 
> I assure you - some of the most honest and hardest working Americans are NOT rich.
> 
> You really sound like someone who has never worked a day in your life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard working Americans are almost never poor.  If you work hard at your job, almost anyone can make a decent living within a few years.  Only alcoholics and other reprobates remain poor their entire lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this was 1967 I'd agree with you.
> 
> But in 201 2 it can and has been statisically proven that economic mobility in the US is all but dead.
> 
> Working your way up is a myth that went out with Reagan.
Click to expand...


Sad, but true

The days when you could graduate HS and get a good union job that would enable you to support a wife and four kids are long gone

Now it takes two salaries, College degrees and a lot of luck to support two kids. 

All thanks to years of Conservative policies


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



First off, I don't _hate _liberals.. I just like it better when they're not around.  Ok, I have to credit Mickey Rourke from "Barfly" for that one.

Anyhoo, the idea that FDR was successful is up for debate, I contend that he sucked... when he was Governor of NY, he railed against all that he implemented as POTUS.  His cousin, Teddy, started us on the Progressive road to ruin.. I see nothing successful about these people.  I see them as disastrous.  Their collectivist, anti-individual ideology sucks ass.


----------



## Charles_Main

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



I don't personally hate Liberals, Hell on some issues I am one. However I do disagree with them on many Issues, and I do not like how they try to claim ownership of All the Intelligence, and Compassion in American Politics. 

So it might be that at least some of them, with their Holy than though, We know best you are stupid, attitude bring down upon themselves disdain.


----------



## francoHFW

Because they're brainwashed Pub dupes and Pubs have been demonizing Liberals since the late 80's...You know, Newt's talking point BS/hate that's ruined political discourse in the country. There were intelligent conservatives, but they are all dead. AuH20!

And the correct answer IS repititious, chumps...


----------



## Billo_Really

Saigon said:


> To some extent, this may have been done in the US with TARP as well, I think.


I think they may have been forced to after Bush came out of his semi-lame duck retirement and threatened Congress with martial law if they didn't pass it.


----------



## kaz

rightwinger said:


> Sad, but true
> 
> The days when you could graduate HS and get a good union job that would enable you to support a wife and four kids are long gone
> 
> Now it takes two salaries, College degrees and a lot of luck to support two kids.
> 
> All thanks to years of Conservative policies



Has it ever occurred to you problem is that you're too lazy?

This is such a load of crap.  Everything I do all day to build my businesses anyone could do.  No one cares what color, sex, religion or age I am and they don't give a crap about the degrees that cover my wall.  It's all about working hard, building a staff, serving my customers and doing deals.


----------



## kaz

francoHFW said:


> Because they're brainwashed Pub dupes and Pubs have been demonizing Liberals since the late 80's...You know, Newt's talking point BS/hate that's ruined political discourse in the country. There were intelligent conservatives, but they are all dead. AuH20!
> 
> And the correct answer IS repititious, chumps...



You resent the hell out of conservatives for thinking of you what you think of them, do you?


----------



## blackhawk

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



If you don't see the same type of contempt from liberals towards conservatives your not looking very hard I have more than a few on ignore for exactly that reason.


----------



## francoHFW

kaz said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they're brainwashed Pub dupes and Pubs have been demonizing Liberals since the late 80's...You know, Newt's talking point BS/hate that's ruined political discourse in the country. There were intelligent conservatives, but they are all dead. AuH20!
> 
> And the correct answer IS repititious, chumps...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You resent the hell out of conservatives for thinking of you what you think of them, do you?
Click to expand...


I resent Pub dupes for being careless fools who believe a lot of Pubcrappe from greedy lying megarich myopic idiot Pubs who have ruined the nonrich and the country. See my sig. Any questions? LOL.


----------



## Darkwind

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


Are you fucking kidding Me?


----------



## AmericanFirst

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


Mainly because of their socialist leanings. Plus, for me, because they support abortion and gay marriage.


----------



## francoHFW

One Dem lie? ONE? See sig pp3 for Pub hateful BS- also Obama gutted workfare and Medicare- total LIE.


----------



## AmericanFirst

Yep, obamaturd is a total lie.


----------



## westwall

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.








Actually, and I hate to admit it, I have experienced true hatred from liberals more than I have from conservatives.  I am socially very liberal, emphasizing individual rights and freedoms over governments power almost universally, I am pro gay marriage (my daughters godmother and one of my sisters are lesbians), I am pro drug legalization, I am anti death penalty except in very rare instances, I am pro choice etc. etc. etc.

However I am also a scientist and as such I will not hide my contempt for bad science and the cult of AGW is an excellent example of that.  Liberals have called for the death and improsnment or commitment to mental institutions for sceptics almost from the begining.

The scurillous things the liberals have said are far worse than anything I've heard from conservatives on issues of a social nature.  I will grant you that ultra religious zealots will commit murder of abortion doctors (one of the few things I think the death penalty is appropriate for) but they are of limited nature.

Hmmm, ultra religious, that describes the AGW cultists as well.  Maybe there's a connection?


----------



## francoHFW

AmericanFirst said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Mainly because of their socialist leanings. Plus, for me, because they support abortion and gay marriage.
Click to expand...


Socialist my azz, just intelligent, fair capitalism. Take your improved, guaranteed, huge cost saving health care, your doctor, and stop believing BULLSHYTTE from greedy Big Health and rich swine. Romneycare proves it works- never reported by your bought off heroes.

Free birth control will hugely limit abortion and save the country tens of billions-

As for your irrational fear and loathing of gays., let them be good citizens.


----------



## AmericanFirst

francoHFW said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Mainly because of their socialist leanings. Plus, for me, because they support abortion and gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialist my azz, just intelligent, fair capitalism. Take your improved, guaranteed, huge cost saving health care, your doctor, and stop believing BULLSHYTTE from greedy Big Health and rich swine. Romneycare proves it works- never reported by your bought off heroes.
> 
> Free birth control will hugely limit abortion and save the country tens of billions-
> 
> As for your irrational fear and loathing of gays., let them be good citizens.
Click to expand...

The socialist obmacare fiasco will not save me or you money, believe that and you are....well, too late. I do not fear or loathe gays. I just know that they are not right in the head. I just want them to stop crying.


----------



## francoHFW

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, and I hate to admit it, I have experienced true hatred from liberals more than I have from conservatives.  I am socially very liberal, emphasizing individual rights and freedoms over governments power almost universally, I am pro gay marriage (my daughters godmother and one of my sisters are lesbians), I am pro drug legalization, I am anti death penalty except in very rare instances, I am pro choice etc. etc. etc.
> 
> However I am also a scientist and as such I will not hide my contempt for bad science and the cult of AGW is an excellent example of that.  Liberals have called for the death and improsnment or commitment to mental institutions for sceptics almost from the begining.
> 
> The scurillous things the liberals have said are far worse than anything I've heard from conservatives on issues of a social nature.  I will grant you that ultra religious zealots will commit murder of abortion doctors (one of the few things I think the death penalty is appropriate for) but they are of limited nature.
> 
> Hmmm, ultra religious, that describes the AGW cultists as well.  Maybe there's a connection?
Click to expand...


So you work for Exxon? lol You don't believe the planet is warming? I'll go with objective scientists.


----------



## skookerasbil

I have always found liberals to be generally miserable and highly likely to spend their lives falling all over themselves trying to make others as miserable as they are. Almost invariably, they are also highly jealous of other peoples success so it comes as no surprise that they also want to fcuk over successful people.............whatever it takes. Also for liberals...........but especially the far left ones who troll in here all the time..........this consistent penchant for placing far higher value on good intentions than results, which to me is what makes them really dangerous.

Thankfully for us non-liberals, we can be very thankful that they number less than 20% of the population and the k00ks who troll on here............their views represent, at best, 10% of the population.


Personally, I cant hate anybody who has such a marginal impact on public policy............so its all good. Thank God we live in a Democracy where even fringe views can be heard.


----------



## francoHFW

AmericanFirst said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mainly because of their socialist leanings. Plus, for me, because they support abortion and gay marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialist my azz, just intelligent, fair capitalism. Take your improved, guaranteed, huge cost saving health care, your doctor, and stop believing BULLSHYTTE from greedy Big Health and rich swine. Romneycare proves it works- never reported by your bought off heroes.
> 
> Free birth control will hugely limit abortion and save the country tens of billions-
> 
> As for your irrational fear and loathing of gays., let them be good citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The socialist obmacare fiasco will not save me or you money, believe that and you are....well, too late. I do not fear or loathe gays. I just know that they are not right in the head. I just want them to stop crying.
Click to expand...


Romney/Teddycare has annual cost rise down to 2%, rest of country under Pub "sytem" still at 15%. Enough to save Medicare/aid and the country's competitiveness. (FRONTLINE). Mass is booming. Change the channel, you're a functional idiot.

You just know? Brilliant, bigot. LOL


----------



## skookerasbil

francoHFW said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, and I hate to admit it, I have experienced true hatred from liberals more than I have from conservatives.  I am socially very liberal, emphasizing individual rights and freedoms over governments power almost universally, I am pro gay marriage (my daughters godmother and one of my sisters are lesbians), I am pro drug legalization, I am anti death penalty except in very rare instances, I am pro choice etc. etc. etc.
> 
> However I am also a scientist and as such I will not hide my contempt for bad science and the cult of AGW is an excellent example of that.  Liberals have called for the death and improsnment or commitment to mental institutions for sceptics almost from the begining.
> 
> The scurillous things the liberals have said are far worse than anything I've heard from conservatives on issues of a social nature.  I will grant you that ultra religious zealots will commit murder of abortion doctors (one of the few things I think the death penalty is appropriate for) but they are of limited nature.
> 
> Hmmm, ultra religious, that describes the AGW cultists as well.  Maybe there's a connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you work for Exxon? lol You don't believe the planet is warming? I'll go with objective scientists.
Click to expand...




This is exactly waht Im talking about in my last post............this kind of viewpoint is radical fringe. These bozo's talk about "the consensus science" all the time as it relates to global warming. But the bomb throwers have failed and the whole effort has slid directly backwards in the last 3 or 4 yeras. Nobody gives a flying fuck about the science. Cap and Trade is now a relic from a former era. Solar and wind still account for less than 5% of our energy production and at BEST, will reach 10% by the mid 2030's. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeet........even Merkel in Germany is going back to coal!!!For the next two decades, the threads in the ENVIRONMENT section are going to say the exact same things and those k00ks will still be losing in decisive fashion.


Liberals are taking the big old telephone pole up the ungreased poop shoot in environmental policy.........the best they can hope to do is throw up court challenges just to fuck up the process. But nobody is talking about "global warming" on Capitol Hill..........the whole phrase is radioactive up there. Even assholes like John Kerry never utter it anymore. And dang..........the president never even referenced the environment or climate change in this years SOTU address.


----------



## Wolfsister77

skookerasbil said:


> I have always found liberals to be generally miserable and highly likely to spend their lives falling all over themselves trying to make others as miserable as they are. Almost invariably, they are also highly jealous of other peoples success so it comes as no surprise that they also want to fcuk over successful people.............whatever it takes. Also for liberals...........but especially the far left ones who troll in here all the time..........this consistent penchant for placing far higher value on good intentions than results, which to me is what makes them really dangerous.
> 
> Thankfully for us non-liberals, we can be very thankful that they number less than 20% of the population and the k00ks who troll on here............their views represent, at best, 10% of the population.
> 
> 
> Personally, I cant hate anybody who has such a marginal impact on public policy............so its all good. Thank God we live in a Democracy where even fringe views can be heard.



None of those things apply to me. I'm very happy with my life and am successful. I don't take help from the Government but I don't have a problem with those who need it doing so. I do not and have never envied anyone's success. In fact, it is one of the things that makes this country great. I value both good intentions and results-you can have both.

I know a lot of liberals-none of them are like you describe.

I'll admit I don't know the liberals on this board very well-yet but I'd like to find out who they are and what they believe before someone tells me. 

I'd like to judge for myself. Same goes for everyone else here. 

You didn't say it but others have said Obamacare is Socialist-I think a definition of the word Socialism is in order because Obamacare gives quite a bit of money and power to private insurance companies.

I'd prefer Medicare for all.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## skookerasbil




----------



## skookerasbil

Wolfsister77 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have always found liberals to be generally miserable and highly likely to spend their lives falling all over themselves trying to make others as miserable as they are. Almost invariably, they are also highly jealous of other peoples success so it comes as no surprise that they also want to fcuk over successful people.............whatever it takes. Also for liberals...........but especially the far left ones who troll in here all the time..........this consistent penchant for placing far higher value on good intentions than results, which to me is what makes them really dangerous.
> 
> Thankfully for us non-liberals, we can be very thankful that they number less than 20% of the population and the k00ks who troll on here............their views represent, at best, 10% of the population.
> 
> 
> Personally, I cant hate anybody who has such a marginal impact on public policy............so its all good. Thank God we live in a Democracy where even fringe views can be heard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of those things apply to me. I'm very happy with my life and am successful. I don't take help from the Government but I don't have a problem with those who need it doing so. I do not and have never envied anyone's success. In fact, it is one of the things that makes this country great. I value both good intentions and results-you can have both.
> 
> I know a lot of liberals-none of them are like you describe.
> 
> I'll admit I don't know the liberals on this board very well-yet but I'd like to find out who they are and what they believe before someone tells me.
> 
> I'd like to judge for myself. Same goes for everyone else here.
> 
> You didn't say it but others have said Obamacare is Socialist-I think a definition of the word Socialism is in order because Obamacare gives quite a bit of money and power to private insurance companies.
> 
> I'd prefer Medicare for all.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...





Well of course you are going to say that, but few people can spend more than 24 hours around a far left guy due to being perpetually pissed off. That is except for other far left liberals...............you know what they say.............misery loves company.


Im sure there are exceptions but this is not even debatable..............you look at some of the k00k lefties on here like Truthmatters who is up to damn near 60,000 posts. Try telling me she's the life of the parties!! There are many more like her ( or him.........not sure) on thsi forum..............all miserable mofu's!!!


Sure makes this place a hoot for me though!!!!


----------



## Toro

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



First, you're not an American.  Of course, you can be a liberal and an American, but the term "liberal" is used as an insult in the American lexicon.  Very few national politicians get up on stage and call themselves a liberal, even the liberal ones.  

To conservatives - rightly or wrongly - liberals are the embodiment of all that is anti-American.  In American mythology - and I do not use the term "mythology" in a pejorative sense - the individual is sovereign.  Individuals are free from government interference to pursue life, liberty and happiness.  Of course, like all mythologies, this is a generalization and actual practice is rife with contradictions, but the central concept is generally correct.  To be an American is to be a free individual.  This does not mean freedom from hunger or freedom from homelessness, as it means to parts of the European left.  It means freedom of action from government coercion.  Liberals may reasonably differ from this interpretation but liberals generally want to use government to right social wrongs.  Conservatives view this as an intrusion onto the sovereignty of the individual, which they view as an assault on what it means to be an American.


----------



## francoHFW

skookerasbil said:


>



I was 2 1/2 when we had a view of the Warspite from our hotel. By that time it looked more like a tanker. My father took a rowboat around it. Thanks!

The Pub propaganda machine has made global warming and gun control of any kind toxic- doesn't mean their right, just loudmouth a-holes. LOL
The world's laughingstock and horror...


----------



## Wolfsister77

skookerasbil said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have always found liberals to be generally miserable and highly likely to spend their lives falling all over themselves trying to make others as miserable as they are. Almost invariably, they are also highly jealous of other peoples success so it comes as no surprise that they also want to fcuk over successful people.............whatever it takes. Also for liberals...........but especially the far left ones who troll in here all the time..........this consistent penchant for placing far higher value on good intentions than results, which to me is what makes them really dangerous.
> 
> Thankfully for us non-liberals, we can be very thankful that they number less than 20% of the population and the k00ks who troll on here............their views represent, at best, 10% of the population.
> 
> 
> Personally, I cant hate anybody who has such a marginal impact on public policy............so its all good. Thank God we live in a Democracy where even fringe views can be heard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of those things apply to me. I'm very happy with my life and am successful. I don't take help from the Government but I don't have a problem with those who need it doing so. I do not and have never envied anyone's success. In fact, it is one of the things that makes this country great. I value both good intentions and results-you can have both.
> 
> I know a lot of liberals-none of them are like you describe.
> 
> I'll admit I don't know the liberals on this board very well-yet but I'd like to find out who they are and what they believe before someone tells me.
> 
> I'd like to judge for myself. Same goes for everyone else here.
> 
> You didn't say it but others have said Obamacare is Socialist-I think a definition of the word Socialism is in order because Obamacare gives quite a bit of money and power to private insurance companies.
> 
> I'd prefer Medicare for all.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course you are going to say that, but few people can spend more than 24 hours around a far left guy due to being perpetually pissed off. That is except for other far left liberals...............you know what they say.............misery loves company.
> 
> 
> Im sure there are exceptions but this is not even debatable..............you look at some of the k00k lefties on here like Truthmatters who is up to damn near 60,000 posts. Try telling me she's the life of the parties!! There are many more like her ( or him.........not sure) on thsi forum..............all miserable mofu's!!!
> 
> 
> Sure makes this place a hoot for me though!!!!
Click to expand...


Well, I don't know those people yet. But I'm not the least bit miserable and I like the company of Liberals.

Oh well, at least you are having fun. I am too!!


----------



## Harry Dresden

rightwinger said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals founded this country
> 
> What have conservatives done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how many times are you going to bring this up?...........and how many times are you going to be told Liberal/Conservative in those days may not have meant as much as it seems to today....they both had a common goal.....they wanted to be free of the British.....the Colonist who were against them were here,but were British at heart obviously....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense
> 
> Liberals and conservatives meant even more than today. The conservatives of the day were Tories who supported the crown. Liberals had this strange notion of all men being created equal
Click to expand...


thats right nonsense....only the "Liberals" of the day wanted England out?.....the "Conservatives" of the day did not want Independence?.....then why the fuck did they take the trip to go there?.....the Tories were English Citizens who were loyal to the crown......the Colonist who wanted Independence were ANY Colonist who wanted Independence....for anyone to say ONLY the so called Liberal of the day wanted Independence and everyone else did not.....is pretty dam ridiculous...


----------



## Harry Dresden

rightwinger said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard working Americans are almost never poor.  If you work hard at your job, almost anyone can make a decent living within a few years.  Only alcoholics and other reprobates remain poor their entire lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this was 1967 I'd agree with you.
> 
> But in 201 2 it can and has been statisically proven that economic mobility in the US is all but dead.
> 
> Working your way up is a myth that went out with Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sad, but true
> 
> The days when you could graduate HS and get a good union job that would enable you to support a wife and four kids are long gone
> 
> Now it takes two salaries, College degrees and a lot of luck to support two kids.
> 
> All thanks to years of Conservative policies
Click to expand...


you got me fooled RW.....in California it has taken two Salaries for quite some time now.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

francoHFW said:


> Because they're brainwashed Pub dupes and Pubs have been demonizing Liberals since the late 80's...You know, Newt's talking point BS/hate that's ruined political discourse in the country. There were intelligent conservatives, but they are all dead. AuH20!
> 
> *And the correct answer IS repititious, chumps...*



kinda like your posts.....Chump.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

francoHFW said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they're brainwashed Pub dupes and Pubs have been demonizing Liberals since the late 80's...You know, Newt's talking point BS/hate that's ruined political discourse in the country. There were intelligent conservatives, but they are all dead. AuH20!
> 
> And the correct answer IS repititious, chumps...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You resent the hell out of conservatives for thinking of you what you think of them, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I resent Pub dupes for being *careless fools who believe a lot of Pubcrappe from greedy lying megarich myopic idiot Pubs *who have ruined the nonrich and the country. See my sig. Any questions? LOL.
Click to expand...


Frankie....you believe a lot Demcrap from equally greedy lying assholes.....you post the same shit over and over....for a guy who CLAIMS he has a Masters....you seem to be pretty stunted mentally.....oh and Change the Channel Chump....


----------



## Harry Dresden

francoHFW said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was 2 1/2 when we had a view of the Warspite from our hotel. By that time it looked more like a tanker. My father took a rowboat around it. Thanks!
> 
> The Pub propaganda machine has made global warming and gun control of any kind toxic- doesn't mean their right, just loudmouth a-holes. LOL
> The world's laughingstock and horror...
Click to expand...


dam....you are an old Fart.....what was the Roaring twenties like?.....did you see the Babe play when you were a kid?....


----------



## francoHFW

One Dem lie, chump? And I will beat you senseless with your dupe idiocy. Pub lies? Sig pp3, "Obama gutted Medicareand Workfare". Pure BS. YOU believe.


----------



## francoHFW

I'm 61 and look 45. The 20's were GREAT for rich Pubs who started THAT Great Depression...


----------



## Sactowndog

Saigon said:


> *Mr Nick & Zonly - *
> 
> 
> 
> zonly1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only thing i have proven is you are a clown of infinite proportion b/c you state socialism and liberalism don't equal and I say to you are clown b/c socialism and liberalism are the same movements.  YOu must have fallen off the turnip truck back in the day, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am on fairly solid ground here - I have both studied and worked with political theory from time to time.
> 
> The best map we have of political theories is the horseshoe, which is linked below.
> 
> What the horseshoe shows is that people close to the centre on either left or right wing are much, much closer to each other than they are to the extremes.
> 
> Clinton (centre left) is closer to Bush (centre right) than he is to Stalin (extreme left).
> 
> McCain (centre right) is closer to Obama (Social Democract) than he is to Hitler (extreme right).
> 
> This is really the basis to understanding all political theory.
> 
> Horseshoe theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Okay since many on the right truely believe Obama to be a communist do you believe that is because Obama is moving that far left or do you think the right is inching closer to Facism and therefore to them Obama appears communist.  

Given the basis of the right in conservative religion, their absolute unwillingness to cut the military, and their support of corporate welfare I think it is more the latter.  Ron Paul and that wing would be exempted from that characterization of course.


----------



## francoHFW

Only tinfoil total dupes believe Obama is communist. Cold War dinosaur morons. The rest of the world sees a pragmatic centrist.


----------



## Sactowndog

Mr.Nick said:


> "Progress" progresses into Orwellian territory - once the idiots realize what they have done to our society and culture it will be too late.
> 
> I don't understand progressives whatsoever... Why does a person want a government to run their life - dictate what they can and cant do - dictate what they can and cant eat - dictate (eventually) where they can and cannot go?



So I hate the nanny state as much as you but how can you ascribe this just to liberals?  The social conservative side is just as likely to tell you how you can behave.


----------



## westwall

francoHFW said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, and I hate to admit it, I have experienced true hatred from liberals more than I have from conservatives.  I am socially very liberal, emphasizing individual rights and freedoms over governments power almost universally, I am pro gay marriage (my daughters godmother and one of my sisters are lesbians), I am pro drug legalization, I am anti death penalty except in very rare instances, I am pro choice etc. etc. etc.
> 
> However I am also a scientist and as such I will not hide my contempt for bad science and the cult of AGW is an excellent example of that.  Liberals have called for the death and improsnment or commitment to mental institutions for sceptics almost from the begining.
> 
> The scurillous things the liberals have said are far worse than anything I've heard from conservatives on issues of a social nature.  I will grant you that ultra religious zealots will commit murder of abortion doctors (one of the few things I think the death penalty is appropriate for) but they are of limited nature.
> 
> Hmmm, ultra religious, that describes the AGW cultists as well.  Maybe there's a connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you work for Exxon? lol You don't believe the planet is warming? I'll go with objective scientists.
Click to expand...





Nope, my first job was with Dames and Moore, you wouldn't know who they were as they were the worlds first environmental geology company.  You know folks who actually try and fix the damage man has done to the planet, unlike you folks who just want to tax people to pollute more.

And as far as objective scientists go, when you can show me one of those "objective" scientists who isn't dependent on government largesse for the AGW "research" they do, you let me know.


----------



## westwall

francoHFW said:


> Only tinfoil total dupes believe Obama is communist. Cold War dinosaur morons. The rest of the world sees a pragmatic centrist.







In what way is he centrist?  I see him give loads of money to those who have given him money but his policies are very collectivist.  I see nothing centrist about him.


----------



## francoHFW

What was the name of the RW propagandist who just switched sides on AGW?


----------



## westwall

francoHFW said:


> What was the name of the RW propagandist who just switched sides on AGW?






I don't know?  Who was it?


----------



## francoHFW

Communist ACA is the Heritage/Nixon/Dole/Romney plan. You are duped. D'OH!


----------



## rdean

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



There is a difference between people and the right wingnut Christian Taliban you are so obviously fond of.


----------



## francoHFW

ASSOCIATED PRESS: Global warming skeptic switches sides ...
sd28.senate.ca.gov/.../2012-02-15-associated-press-global-warming-skeptic-switches-sides - Cached
Feb 15, 2012 ... ASSOCIATED PRESS: Global warming skeptic switches sides ... spent two years 
trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong.


----------



## Sactowndog

MeBelle60 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Political parties in the USA are opposite of those in Europe and they operate differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they do. Very differently in some ways, and very similar in others.
> 
> Certainly the word 'liberal' in the US has drifted a long way from its British roots...but I think most of us non-US posters do understand the sense in which Americans mean it.
> 
> btw. While I understand what Wiki is referring to, Kokoomus are very much a pro-business conservative party and True Finns populist. Like most populast parties they through out the odd left wing policy, but they are mainly anti-immigrant and very conservative. I wouldn't call either liberal at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kudos! For great chat without descending to cursing!
> 
> I did not see Kokoomus on your wiki link...which leaves me
Click to expand...


The party structures are vary different based on the parliamentary system versus the winner take all system in the United States.  If you had a parliamentary system here the major parties would quickly fracture into many parts.  The Greens and the libertarians would become much stronger as they would pull from the major parties.  We would also clearly have our own communist and facist party.


----------



## francoHFW

ASSOCIATED PRESS: Global warming skeptic switches sides 
February 15, 2012 
By Seth Borenstein

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley, and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.

What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to cable TV's satirical "The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study.

One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the conservative tea

party movement. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions. 
Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.

"The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."

Muller said that he came into the study "with a proper skepticism," something scientists "should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism" before.

There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages.
 (AP)


----------



## Sactowndog

kaz said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to get into detail because then I would be accused of being hateful toward cons. But while liberals view the world with shades of gray, conservatives view the world as black vs white,us vs them,good vs evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, which is why liberals all have the same position on every issue while Republicans are split on every issue.  What you are saying is ... baaa ...
Click to expand...


Come Kaz you can't truely be a libertarian and be that one sided.  The Republicans passed the Patriot Act which is one of the most anti-libertarian acts ever.  They started the office of the drug czar.  They insure Pharmacuetical companies prevent you from buying a prescription in Canada.  They have led efforts to limit what Muslims can do with their own property.

No one side has a monopoly on limiting our freedoms.


----------



## francoHFW

Dupes are always WRONG. LOL


----------



## francoHFW

We would also clearly have our own communist and facist party. 

Pub dupe idiocy. Communism is dead here. And it's fascist.


----------



## Sactowndog

TakeAStepBack said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now they hate it, after they supported it.
> 
> It was Bush that birthed it in the first place.  Kind of the same way that some of the liberals screamed totalitarianism and NAZI but are now just fine with it.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not fine with it.  I've been against it from day 1 and still am.  I'm also against the MCA and the NDAA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And presumably, you support Barack Obama. That's where I don't get the LOLberals. When Bush was writing up shit like the patriot act, the howling and moaning from the lolberals was loud and boisterous. I know, because i sided with them over it.
> 
> But, now it really is just a side issue. It's a passing "I'm against it" now that Obama extended the act and even added new civil liberty erosions like NDAA2012.
> 
> That's the part i dont get. Bush and his wars and his civil liberties erosions and oh the HUGE Maniti. But it's crickets and the occassional "I'm against those things" when it is brought into question now that Obama is the one dishing out the unconstitutional wars, etc...
Click to expand...


This not true at all.  I support Obama over Romney but I voted in the Republican primary for Paul and I am debating whether to vote Obama or the libertarian candidate in the fall.  Many democrats were pro Paul who quite frankly might have done just as well running for the Democratic nomination as he did running for the Republican one.


----------



## Sactowndog

francoHFW said:


> We would also clearly have our own communist and facist party.
> 
> Pub dupe idiocy. Communism is dead here. And it's fascist.



You don't read my posts much and clearly you need to post less and have sex more as you are wound a little tight.  With a nation this size we would have parties of all types.


----------



## westwall

francoHFW said:


> ASSOCIATED PRESS: Global warming skeptic switches sides
> February 15, 2012
> By Seth Borenstein
> 
> The Associated Press
> 
> WASHINGTON - A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.
> 
> The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.
> 
> Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley, and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.
> 
> He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.
> 
> What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to cable TV's satirical "The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study.
> 
> One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the conservative tea
> 
> party movement. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.
> Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.
> 
> "The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."
> 
> Muller said that he came into the study "with a proper skepticism," something scientists "should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism" before.
> 
> There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages.
> (AP)







Of course the major problem with this story is Muller was never a sceptic.  Put simply, find a SINGLE paper where he espoused a sceptical POV.  His company is focused on sustainability.  Not exactly the kind of credentials a sceptic would have.  But once again they sell the sizzle and you bend over and take it.



Muller & Associates | Impartial Energy Expertise


----------



## westwall

francoHFW said:


> Dupes are always WRONG. LOL







Indeed, look at you!


----------



## Mr.Nick

The simple fact these fascists portray themselves as "liberals" shows how illiterate they are and how out of touch with reality they are.


----------



## Old Rocks

Mr.Nick said:


> The simple fact these fascists portray themselves as "liberals" shows how illiterate they are and how out of touch with reality they are.



After a statement like that, you expect anyone with an IQ above room temperature to take you seriously


----------



## Saigon

Mr.Nick said:


> The simple fact these fascists portray themselves as "liberals" shows how illiterate they are and how out of touch with reality they are.



So you are using political terms incorrectly in the same post as you complain about illiteracy?


----------



## Harry Dresden

francoHFW said:


> I'm 61 and look 45. The 20's were GREAT for rich Pubs who started THAT Great Depression...



sure you do Franco......the people around you are going to tell you that you look great.....what else do you think they are going to say....the truth?....


----------



## Harry Dresden

francoHFW said:


> Dupes are always WRONG. LOL



are you always right Frankie?.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Sactowndog said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> We would also clearly have our own communist and facist party.
> 
> Pub dupe idiocy. Communism is dead here. And it's fascist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't read my posts much and* clearly you need to post less and have sex more as you are wound a little tight.  *With a nation this size we would have parties of all types.
Click to expand...


......he has you pegged Frankie.....do you even remember what sex is ?....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Old Rocks said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple fact these fascists portray themselves as "liberals" shows how illiterate they are and how out of touch with reality they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After a statement like that, you expect anyone with an IQ above room temperature to take you seriously
Click to expand...


Nick knows more than anyone else Rocks.....just ask him....he will tell you....


----------



## Mr. H.

I hate Libs because they wade into the stupidist shit, then sit there on their asses for what seems an eternity- all the while maintaining a blissful grin. They just love to ferment in the garden of goop-fuck. And then if anyone so much as opens their mouth in question- BAM out come the guns. 

Question their self-righteous self-imposed idyllic idiocy and they go ape-shit. It's like someone flushing themselves down a toilet of their own excrement. 

Liberals eat, breathe, and yes- live and even shit in a pile of fantastic flowers and rainbows. Then they expect you to smell it and tell them it is the most abundantly robust aroma that you've ever experienced. They will hand you their own asses on a platter and proclaim it gospel and then expect you to cut it up with knife and fork and give it a five star rating. 

Oh and Liberals insist that you "educate yourself". Educate yourself into their dogma of falsified reality.


----------



## Saigon

Mr. H. said:


> I hate Libs because they wade into the stupidist shit, then sit there on their asses for what seems an eternity- all the while maintaining a blissful grin. They just love to ferment in the garden of goop-fuck. And then if anyone so much as opens their mouth in question- BAM out come the guns.
> .



Well, I don't think we will see a stupider post than this.

Perhaps you could name some of the people who fit this description, Mr H, and explain in detail how the have "fermented"?


----------



## American_Jihad

*I am officially sick of all liberals*

Yeah, I'm gonna rant. Get over it. Eat the bullets of my word-gun. Prepare to be stereotyped!

These label-happy liberals have me on my last nerve. They go around shaming anyone that even slightly aligns with republicans like it's some sort of religious crusade. Like if you're even slightly republican, it automatically makes you a closed-minded lunatic. Then they turn around and say "If we just look to the almighty government, it can save us!" It's garbage and most liberals half-know it, but their too busy railing against the Right to admit it.

---

Daily Kos: I am officially sick of all liberals


----------



## SuMar

American_Jihad said:


> *I am officially sick of all liberals*
> 
> Yeah, I'm gonna rant. Get over it. Eat the bullets of my word-gun. Prepare to be stereotyped!
> 
> These label-happy liberals have me on my last nerve. They go around shaming anyone that even slightly aligns with republicans like it's some sort of religious crusade. _Like if you're even slightly republican, it automatically makes you a closed-minded lunatic._ Then they turn around and say "If we just look to the almighty government, it can save us!" It's garbage and most liberals half-know it, but their too busy railing against the Right to admit it.
> 
> ---
> 
> Daily Kos: I am officially sick of all liberals




Don't forget a hillbilly, gun toting racist.


----------



## Moonglow

American_Jihad said:


> *I am officially sick of all liberals*
> 
> Yeah, I'm gonna rant. Get over it. Eat the bullets of my word-gun. Prepare to be stereotyped!
> 
> These label-happy liberals have me on my last nerve. They go around shaming anyone that even slightly aligns with republicans like it's some sort of religious crusade. Like if you're even slightly republican, it automatically makes you a closed-minded lunatic. Then they turn around and say "If we just look to the almighty government, it can save us!" It's garbage and most liberals half-know it, but their too busy railing against the Right to admit it.
> 
> ---
> 
> Daily Kos: I am officially sick of all liberals



So repubs have never had govt help?
You sound like nothing but a hater, anything else new?
Are you using soft bullets?


----------



## Moonglow

Saigon said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate Libs because they wade into the stupidist shit, then sit there on their asses for what seems an eternity- all the while maintaining a blissful grin. They just love to ferment in the garden of goop-fuck. And then if anyone so much as opens their mouth in question- BAM out come the guns.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't think we will see a stupider post than this.
> 
> Perhaps you could name some of the people who fit this description, Mr H, and explain in detail how the have "fermented"?
Click to expand...


Well he certainly lacks in the skill of specifics.


----------



## Moonglow

Harry Dresden said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple fact these fascists portray themselves as "liberals" shows how illiterate they are and how out of touch with reality they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After a statement like that, you expect anyone with an IQ above room temperature to take you seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nick knows more than anyone else Rocks.....just ask him....he will tell you....
Click to expand...


he's too smart for his own good.


----------



## SuMar

Moonglow said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am officially sick of all liberals*
> 
> Yeah, I'm gonna rant. Get over it. Eat the bullets of my word-gun. Prepare to be stereotyped!
> 
> These label-happy liberals have me on my last nerve. They go around shaming anyone that even slightly aligns with republicans like it's some sort of religious crusade. Like if you're even slightly republican, it automatically makes you a closed-minded lunatic. Then they turn around and say "If we just look to the almighty government, it can save us!" It's garbage and most liberals half-know it, but their too busy railing against the Right to admit it.
> 
> ---
> 
> Daily Kos: I am officially sick of all liberals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So repubs have never had govt help?
> You sound like nothing but a hater, anything else new?
> Are you using soft bullets?
Click to expand...



Can't speak for all republicans or conservatives, as for me, I never had to depend on the government to take care of me.


----------



## Moonglow

SuMar said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am officially sick of all liberals*
> 
> Yeah, I'm gonna rant. Get over it. Eat the bullets of my word-gun. Prepare to be stereotyped!
> 
> These label-happy liberals have me on my last nerve. They go around shaming anyone that even slightly aligns with republicans like it's some sort of religious crusade. Like if you're even slightly republican, it automatically makes you a closed-minded lunatic. Then they turn around and say "If we just look to the almighty government, it can save us!" It's garbage and most liberals half-know it, but their too busy railing against the Right to admit it.
> 
> ---
> 
> Daily Kos: I am officially sick of all liberals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So repubs have never had govt help?
> You sound like nothing but a hater, anything else new?
> Are you using soft bullets?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't speak for all republicans or conservatives, as for me, I never had to depend on the government to take care of me.
Click to expand...


Well the VA takes good care of me, so what's the beef?


----------



## Shelzin

Matthew said:


> Their economic theory's are destructive.


The world is flat.


----------



## Mr. H.

Saigon said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate Libs because they wade into the stupidist shit, then sit there on their asses for what seems an eternity- all the while maintaining a blissful grin. They just love to ferment in the garden of goop-fuck. And then if anyone so much as opens their mouth in question- BAM out come the guns.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't think we will see a stupider post than this.
> 
> Perhaps you could name some of the people who fit this description, Mr H, and explain in detail how the have "fermented"?
Click to expand...


Quit chopping my posts, you sound-bite whore.


----------



## SuMar

Moonglow said:


> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So repubs have never had govt help?
> You sound like nothing but a hater, anything else new?
> Are you using soft bullets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't speak for all republicans or conservatives, as for me, I never had to depend on the government to take care of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the VA takes good care of me, so what's the beef?
Click to expand...



Where do I begin? 

ObamaCare

Open Boarders

Higher taxes on the wealthy

High Gas Prices

Welfare

Skyrocketing Unemployment (which means more on welfare)

Liberals deflecting the important issues with our country and concentrate on gay marriages...gun control....abortion


----------



## American_Jihad

American_Jihad said:


> *I am officially sick of all liberals*
> 
> Yeah, I'm gonna rant. Get over it. Eat the bullets of my word-gun. Prepare to be stereotyped!
> 
> These label-happy liberals have me on my last nerve. They go around shaming anyone that even slightly aligns with republicans like it's some sort of religious crusade. Like if you're even slightly republican, it automatically makes you a closed-minded lunatic. Then they turn around and say "If we just look to the almighty government, it can save us!" It's garbage and most liberals half-know it, but their too busy railing against the Right to admit it.
> 
> ---
> 
> Daily Kos: I am officially sick of all liberals



Did yawl see the lib-tarts attack their own website, that's a hoot...


----------



## Saigon

Mr. H. said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate Libs because they wade into the stupidist shit, then sit there on their asses for what seems an eternity- all the while maintaining a blissful grin. They just love to ferment in the garden of goop-fuck. And then if anyone so much as opens their mouth in question- BAM out come the guns.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't think we will see a stupider post than this.
> 
> Perhaps you could name some of the people who fit this description, Mr H, and explain in detail how the have "fermented"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quit chopping my posts, you sound-bite whore.
Click to expand...


Yes, I'd be embarrased if I'd posted that garbage as well.

What is it - a quote from an Iron Maiden song?


----------



## Saigon

American_Jihad said:


> Did yawl see the lib-tarts attack their own website, that's a hoot...



What are you talking about?

Does someone on this site own that website?

If not - how is it "theirs"?


----------



## American_Jihad

Mr. H. said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate Libs because they wade into the stupidist shit, then sit there on their asses for what seems an eternity- all the while maintaining a blissful grin. They just love to ferment in the garden of goop-fuck. And then if anyone so much as opens their mouth in question- BAM out come the guns.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't think we will see a stupider post than this.
> 
> Perhaps you could name some of the people who fit this description, Mr H, and explain in detail how the have "fermented"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quit chopping my posts, you sound-bite whore.
Click to expand...


Ain't that a bitch, the Mods told me I couldn't chop a 





> ...


----------



## American_Jihad

Saigon said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did yawl see the lib-tarts attack their own website, that's a hoot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> Does someone on this site own that website?
> 
> If not - how is it "theirs"?
Click to expand...


Said the person from Hellstinki, wtf...


----------



## Mr. H.

American_Jihad said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't think we will see a stupider post than this.
> 
> Perhaps you could name some of the people who fit this description, Mr H, and explain in detail how the have "fermented"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quit chopping my posts, you sound-bite whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ain't that a bitch, the Mods told me I couldn't chop a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's 'cause you're a bitch and nobody likes you.
Click to expand...


----------



## Saigon

AJ - 

You should celebrate the fact that open minded posters will still call 'em as they see 'em and not stick to blinkered party loyalty to think for them.

If conservative posters were more prepared to criticise conservative media, posters and politicians, conservatism would be stronger for it. 

btw. I clip posts to save space and make it clearer what exactly I am replying to. Everyone should do it.


----------



## candycorn

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Like with all things; there are hardliners and moderates.  Both camps have their share of both here if you ask me and when it comes to policy and rhetoric; I can't tell one from the other.  I have TM on ignore as I also have several conservatives on ignore as well.  When there is decidedly nothing to learn from someone and they are not entertaining, it's time to move on.  

But given that this medium is also largely about entertainment; there is also something to be said for playing to the audience.  I think if you're looking for a difference in the two camps that is the only major difference I see.  The right wing seems to pride itself on being disgusting to an extent that isn't healthy.  And it's not just one or two of the lot but several among them.


----------



## American_Jihad

*10 Differences between Conservatives And Liberals*

Conservatives and liberals approach almost every issue with completely different philosophies, underlying assumptions, and methods. That's why it's so hard to find genuine compromise between conservatism and liberalism -- because not only are liberals almost always wrong, their solutions almost always make things worse. 

With that in mind, let me take a few moments to explain some of the key differences between liberals and conservative to you. 

Bonus) Conservatives believe that judges should act like umpires instead of legislating from the bench. That means that judges should determine whether laws are permissible under the Constitution and settle debates about the meaning of laws, not impose their will based on their ideological leanings. Liberals view judges as a backdoor method of getting unpopular left-leaning legislation passed. They don't want umpires, they want political partisans in black robes who will side with them first and then come up with a rationale to explain it. 

---

10 Differences between Conservatives And Liberals - John Hawkins - [page]

3

2

1


----------



## Nole

Good thread OP. Good try anyways.


Some good conversation was had for the first few pages. 


Fing pisses me off you (OP) know more about these stand by talking points than many here.


----------



## Unkotare

Saigon said:


> AJ -
> 
> You should celebrate the fact that open minded posters will still call 'em as they see 'em and not stick to blinkered party loyalty to think for them.
> 
> If conservative posters were more prepared to criticise conservative media, posters and politicians, conservatism would be stronger for it.





Did you honestly not realize what an asshole you'd look like when you posted that?


----------



## Saigon

Unkotare said:


> Did you honestly not realize what an asshole you'd look like when you posted that?



Whereas I thought you looked really cool when you scolded another poster for his English - in a comment containing no less than four language errors. 

I'm still entirely comfortable with what I said to AJ - criticising posters for attacking "their" own media sources promotes passive obediance - not free thinking.


----------



## Saigon

Nole said:


> Good thread OP. Good try anyways.
> 
> 
> Some good conversation was had for the first few pages.
> 
> 
> Fing pisses me off you (OP) know more about these stand by talking points than many here.



Thanks Nole! 

We did have some really good debate in the first few pages!


----------



## Unkotare

Saigon said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you honestly not realize what an asshole you'd look like when you posted that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas I thought you looked really cool when you scolded another poster for his English - in a comment containing no less than four language errors.
Click to expand...




I already corrected you about that. Back to ESL school with you.


----------



## Saigon

Unkotare said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you honestly not realize what an asshole you'd look like when you posted that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas I thought you looked really cool when you scolded another poster for his English - in a comment containing no less than four language errors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already corrected you about that. Back to ESL school with you.
Click to expand...





> Is the third-world where you tried, and failed miserably, to learn English, you fucking moron?



And here it is again for you - 

1) incorrect use of hyphen
2) incorrect use of commas
3) incorrect use of capital letters
4) incorrect sentence structure - statement/question forms confused

The sentence could perhaps read - 

"Where in the Third World did you try and fail miserably to learn English, you fucking moron?"

Again, I'd be more than happy to explain the laws involved for you.


----------



## Fordsflylow

Harry Dresden said:


> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the businesses and employees that get the 400mil in business revenue and the taxes they pay...yes indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to look at the broad/big picture.  You know, like the facts that a relative few rich fucking assholes are trying to BUY this election and are funding only one side - the con side.  Which makes it easy to assume that they expect something in return for their investments.  What do you think that might be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what about the rich fucking assholes who fund only the Liberal side?....dont you think they want something in return?......what do you think it might be?.....the trouble with many people here is they think the real rich Democrats are different than the real rich Conservatives.....when push comes to shove...see who they side with....the people or themselves.....rich people will side with other rich people because they have something in common.....its called Money.....
Click to expand...


You could have done better than that avoiding answering my question, AND asking one instead.  What will the rich fucking asshole get in return for supporting a con with oodles of money?  Seeing as you're so good at not answering questions I'll try again but a different question; name a "rich fucking asshole" who funds only the left?  I'd bet my bottom dollar if he/she funds the left he/she is not an asshole, as are the numerous rich fucking assholes who do fund only the right AND expect a great deal in return.

The wealthy who fund the left know they are not going to get anything in return which is why corporate money tends to be lopsided toward the right/wrong side.  Those who fund the left imo show a concern for those who's voice is drowned out by the money AND try and counter it with money.


----------



## Fordsflylow

Harry Dresden said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals founded this country
> 
> What have conservatives done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how many times are you going to bring this up?...........and how many times are you going to be told Liberal/Conservative in those days may not have meant as much as it seems to today....they both had a common goal.....they wanted to be free of the British.....the Colonist who were against them were here,but were British at heart obviously....
Click to expand...


What kind/type of British were they against?


----------



## Unkotare

Saigon said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas I thought you looked really cool when you scolded another poster for his English - in a comment containing no less than four language errors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already corrected you about that. Back to ESL school with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the third-world where you tried, and failed miserably, to learn English, you fucking moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here it is again for you -
> 
> 1) incorrect use of hyphen
> 2) incorrect use of commas
> 3) incorrect use of capital letters
> 4) incorrect sentence structure - statement/question forms confused
> 
> The sentence could perhaps read -
> 
> "Where in the Third World did you try and fail miserably to learn English, you fucking moron?"
> 
> Again, I'd be more than happy to explain the laws involved for you.
Click to expand...




Good luck in the next level of your ESL course, dope.


----------



## Fordsflylow

skookerasbil said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, and I hate to admit it, I have experienced true hatred from liberals more than I have from conservatives.  I am socially very liberal, emphasizing individual rights and freedoms over governments power almost universally, I am pro gay marriage (my daughters godmother and one of my sisters are lesbians), I am pro drug legalization, I am anti death penalty except in very rare instances, I am pro choice etc. etc. etc.
> 
> However I am also a scientist and as such I will not hide my contempt for bad science and the cult of AGW is an excellent example of that.  Liberals have called for the death and improsnment or commitment to mental institutions for sceptics almost from the begining.
> 
> The scurillous things the liberals have said are far worse than anything I've heard from conservatives on issues of a social nature.  I will grant you that ultra religious zealots will commit murder of abortion doctors (one of the few things I think the death penalty is appropriate for) but they are of limited nature.
> 
> Hmmm, ultra religious, that describes the AGW cultists as well.  Maybe there's a connection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you work for Exxon? lol You don't believe the planet is warming? I'll go with objective scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly waht Im talking about in my last post............this kind of viewpoint is radical fringe. These bozo's talk about "the consensus science" all the time as it relates to global warming. But the bomb throwers have failed and the whole effort has slid directly backwards in the last 3 or 4 yeras. Nobody gives a flying fuck about the science. Cap and Trade is now a relic from a former era. Solar and wind still account for less than 5% of our energy production and at BEST, will reach 10% by the mid 2030's. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeet........even Merkel in Germany is going back to coal!!!For the next two decades, the threads in the ENVIRONMENT section are going to say the exact same things and those k00ks will still be losing in decisive fashion.
> 
> 
> Liberals are taking the big old telephone pole up the ungreased poop shoot in environmental policy.........the best they can hope to do is throw up court challenges just to fuck up the process. But nobody is talking about "global warming" on Capitol Hill..........the whole phrase is radioactive up there. Even assholes like John Kerry never utter it anymore. And dang..........the president never even referenced the environment or climate change in this years SOTU address.
Click to expand...


"Nobody" gives a shit about science?  I'd believe that con's, particularly evangelical christian con's, don't give a shit about science.  Hell read any of their text books and it is clear as the day is long they have no need for it.

What or who made you an expert of Germany's energy policy?  This ought to be good!  Seems to me I read somewhere that Germany has among the most solar energy per capita than all industrialized countries.


----------



## Freewill

Old Rocks said:


> Now Mathew, you really think that the economic theories that resulted in the First Great Republican Depression were not destructive? And that the deconstruction of the regulations that were put into place because of that Depression, leading up to October, 2008, and a very near brush with the Second Great Republican Depression, were not destuctive?



Considering that the destruction of the economy occurred after the democrats took control of Congress and ignored Bush, yes the liberal idea of economics has proved to be a giant fail.  Obama had 3 1/2 years to do what he said and again fail.  Of course he has a good excuse.  He did not and does not have the experience to know what he should do and the liberals he put in as Czar obviously don't know what they are doing, or have you been living on some other planet for 3 1/2 years of economic disaster?  And don't try and feed us the "it would have been worse" BS.  When Obama was running for office we told you that he didn't have the experience.  When he was plunging our children into 4 trillion in debt we told you it wouldn't work.  We were right it has not and we are stuck in the malaise of the longest weakest recovery in history.  Obama had a chance to have one of the greatest economic come backs but he did not, a complete fail.


----------



## Saigon

Freewill - 

Are you really giving the Bush adminstration a pass for eight years of failed economic policies?


----------



## OODA_Loop

Saigon said:


> Freewill -
> 
> Are you really giving the Bush adminstration a pass for eight years of failed economic policies?



I blame it on Filmore.


----------



## Fordsflylow

westwall said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, and I hate to admit it, I have experienced true hatred from liberals more than I have from conservatives.  I am socially very liberal, emphasizing individual rights and freedoms over governments power almost universally, I am pro gay marriage (my daughters godmother and one of my sisters are lesbians), I am pro drug legalization, I am anti death penalty except in very rare instances, I am pro choice etc. etc. etc.
> 
> However I am also a scientist and as such I will not hide my contempt for bad science and the cult of AGW is an excellent example of that.  Liberals have called for the death and improsnment or commitment to mental institutions for sceptics almost from the begining.
> 
> The scurillous things the liberals have said are far worse than anything I've heard from conservatives on issues of a social nature.  I will grant you that ultra religious zealots will commit murder of abortion doctors (one of the few things I think the death penalty is appropriate for) but they are of limited nature.
> 
> Hmmm, ultra religious, that describes the AGW cultists as well.  Maybe there's a connection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you work for Exxon? lol You don't believe the planet is warming? I'll go with objective scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, my first job was with Dames and Moore, you wouldn't know who they were as they were the worlds first environmental geology company.  You know folks who actually try and fix the damage man has done to the planet, unlike you folks who just want to tax people to pollute more.
> 
> And as far as objective scientists go, when you can show me one of those "objective" scientists who isn't dependent on government largesse for the AGW "research" they do, you let me know.
Click to expand...


One thing is perfectly clear to me when it comes to the con's.  They put money above all, even human life.  Therefore their starting point is warped which leads to warped solutions(?).

This is a bit off track but ponder this; if this country could/would just focus on the massive WASTE and inefficiency we could save so much of our home (Earth) and money.  You know lead by example!

The US only gets around 30% efficiency rate from it's power grid, from generation to the consumer.  Which means 60% of a unit of energy is pissed away.  In comparison, Japan wastes 10% with 90% efficiency rate.  That's just one segment!  Virtually every segment of US society wastes beyond belief which is why we as a nation (5% of worlds population) wastes 30% of the worlds resources.  Time to wake up to the fact that this economy is UNSUSTAINABLE.

Instead of we American's bitching about China sending us their poisonous trinkets and such we should quit demanding/consuming them.  Simple really!!


----------



## OODA_Loop

Fordsflylow said:


> [This is a bit off track but ponder this; if this country could/would just focus on the massive WASTE and inefficiency we could save so much of our home (Earth) and money.  You know lead by example!



_"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times"_  - Barack Obama


----------



## Fordsflylow

westwall said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only tinfoil total dupes believe Obama is communist. Cold War dinosaur morons. The rest of the world sees a pragmatic centrist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what way is he centrist?  I see him give loads of money to those who have given him money but his policies are very collectivist.  I see nothing centrist about him.
Click to expand...


Lets compare what just one con, Bush, did with a full majority in Congress for 6 years?  What did he and his cohort cheney do that was so grand in comparison?


----------



## Billo_Really

American_Jihad said:


> *10 Differences between Conservatives And Liberals*
> 
> Conservatives and liberals approach almost every issue with completely different philosophies, underlying assumptions, and methods. That's why it's so hard to find genuine compromise between conservatism and liberalism -- because not only are liberals almost always wrong, their solutions almost always make things worse.
> 
> With that in mind, let me take a few moments to explain some of the key differences between liberals and conservative to you.
> 
> Bonus) Conservatives believe that judges should act like umpires instead of legislating from the bench. That means that judges should determine whether laws are permissible under the Constitution and settle debates about the meaning of laws, not impose their will based on their ideological leanings. Liberals view judges as a backdoor method of getting unpopular left-leaning legislation passed. They don't want umpires, they want political partisans in black robes who will side with them first and then come up with a rationale to explain it.
> 
> ---
> 
> 10 Differences between Conservatives And Liberals - John Hawkins - [page]
> 
> 3
> 
> 2
> 
> 1


Talk about delusional, you fuckers live in an alternate universe that has no basis in reality.  The things you say, are not grounded to anything on this planet.  Did it ever occur to you, that when you broadstroke an entire group of people and act as though they were one entity with one thought process and one goal, that there's something wrong with you and your ability to reason?

Or maybe you're just a pussy who doesn't have the balls to be honest?

Allow me to clear a few things up...


> _10) Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment, which conservatives would oppose. Liberals believe by taking arms away from law abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren't going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes._


I'm a liberal and never in my entire life has the thought of taking someone's gun away crossed my mind.  I would like to see you cite specific examples of where this is occurring.



> _9) Conservatives believe that we should live in a color blind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his actions. On the other hand, liberals believe that it's ok to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups._


Is that why your media leaders sing, "Barack, the magic negro" and say, "he's got a deep seated hatred for white people" or want to bring back Jim Crow laws for elections?  Is that why they hold up racist signs at rallys?



> _8) Conservatives are capitalists and believe that entrepreneurs who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and shouldn't be punished for being successful. Liberals are socialists who view successful business owners as people who cheated the system somehow or got lucky. That's why they don't respect high achievers and see them as little more than piggy banks for their programs._


Tell me what did a hedge fund manager do that is worth $39,000 per hour?  What accomplishment (or contribution) to this society did he make to deserve a payoff like that?  How is society better off when they take our tax dollars and give it to executives for bonuses, instead of putting American's back to work?



> _7) Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion. Most liberals, despite what they'll tell you, believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child, but they prefer killing the baby to inconveniencing the mother._


That's a fetus!  But once that fetus is in this world, you think nothing of executing him/her for possession of drugs.  Even if that person has an IQ of 61.  You value life my ass!



> _6) Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens. Liberals believe in using law enforcement measures to deal with terrorism, which means that they feel we should allow terrorists to train, plan, and actually attempt to kill Americans before we try to arrest them -- as if you can just send the police around to pick up a terrorist mastermind hiding in Iran or the wilds of Pakistan._


That's right you mother-fucker!  This is a country based on the rule of law.  And when you don't respect the law, you are harming our citizens more than any terrorist.  And you're making us all less safe when you make up reasons to attack sovereign nations.

BTW, we also fund, train, plan and actually attempt to kill people in other nations, as well.  I'll give you one example, School of the America's.  WTF do you think we teach there?



> _5) Conservatives, but not necessarily Republicans (which is unfortunate), believe it's vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt. Liberals, and Democrats for that matter, believe in big government, high taxes, and they have never met a new spending program they didn't like, whether we will have to go into debt to pay for it or not._


Reduce the size of government my ass!  Is that why you people created the Dept of Homeland Security (an entire new Cabinet post)?  How much did that run us?  How much did that reduce government?  As far as getting this country out of debt, do I need to remind you, we gave you a budget surplus and what did you do with it?  You created about $4.5 trillion in debt that this country is still dealing with.

And another thing, I do not believe in high taxes.  I also don't believe people in the top 1% income bracket should be paying 10% less than I do for their capital gains and stocks.  If I gotta pay 25% in taxes, then they gotta pay 25% as well.  I don't believe in corporate welfare!



> _4) Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry. That's why we believe that the government that governs least, governs best. Liberals think that the solution to every problem is another government program. Even when those new programs create new problems, often worse than the ones that were being fixed in the first place, the solution is always....you guessed it, another government program._


You outta know something about government being wasteful with our tax dollars.  You spent a trillion US dollars in someone else's fuckin' country to fight this bullshit GWOT and we American's got absolutely nothing in return for that investment.  GO FUCK YOURSELF!



> _3) Conservatives are patriotic, believe that America is a great nation, and are primarily interested in looking out for the good of the country. That's why we believe in "American exceptionalism" and "America first." Liberals are internationalists who are more concerned about what Europeans think of us and staying in the good graces of the corrupt bureaucrats who control the UN than looking out for the best interests of this nation._


There is nothing patriotic about being irresponsible and thinking your above the law.  And when you constantly blame others for the things that you, yourself do, you're not doing anything for the good of the country.  Truth and justice, is the American way.  But when you constantly lie about shit and politicize our justice dept, that is NOT the American way.



> _2) Conservatives, most of them anyway, believe in God and think that the Constitution has been twisted by liberal judges to illegitimately try to purge Christianity from the public square. We also believe, most of us anyway, that this country has been successful in large part because it is a good, Christian nation and if our country ever turns away from the Lord, it will cease to prosper. Liberals, most of them anyway, are hostile to Christianity. That's why, whether you're talking about a school play at Christmas time, a judge putting the Ten Commandments on the wall of his court, or a store employee saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays," liberals are dedicated to driving reminders of Christianity from polite society._


A core American value is the separation of church and state.  The founding fathers saw exactly what could happen in Europe when you combine those two entities and they deliberately set this nation up so that couldn't happen.  You bitch about the threat of Sharia Law, yet you try to do the exact same thing using another religion to do it with.

I'm a liberal and I'm a Catholic.  And I'm gonna tell you, many of you on the right don't have a clue as to what Christianity is all about.  You're just bullshit Christian's acting like you know Christ in order to further a political agenda.  And I'll prove it right now!

Many of you fuckers support the Iraq war.  Well, answer this question if you value the Ten Commandments:'

*"How would Jesus of bombed Fallujah?"​* 


> _1) Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they're pragmatic and because they work. Liberals believe in pursuing policies because they're "nice" and make them feel good. Whether the policies they're advocating actually work or not is of secondary importance to them._


Policies that are "pragmatic and work"?

Like the war on drugs?  Or the war on crime?  Or the war on terror?  Or the war on women?  Or the war on our 1st amendment rights?

I'll make you a deal, I'll fight for your 2nd amendment rights, if you fight for my 1st amendment rights.


----------



## Fordsflylow

rdean said:


> There is a difference between people and the right wingnut Christian Taliban you are so obviously fond of.



So true!


----------



## OODA_Loop

Fordsflylow said:


> Lets compare what just one con, Bush, did with a full majority in Congress for 6 years?  What did he and his cohort cheney do that was so grand in comparison?



My life was better and more enriched.  Which is why I am voting for Romeny this time.


----------



## Fordsflylow

SuMar said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am officially sick of all liberals*
> 
> Yeah, I'm gonna rant. Get over it. Eat the bullets of my word-gun. Prepare to be stereotyped!
> 
> These label-happy liberals have me on my last nerve. They go around shaming anyone that even slightly aligns with republicans like it's some sort of religious crusade. Like if you're even slightly republican, it automatically makes you a closed-minded lunatic. Then they turn around and say "If we just look to the almighty government, it can save us!" It's garbage and most liberals half-know it, but their too busy railing against the Right to admit it.
> 
> ---
> 
> Daily Kos: I am officially sick of all liberals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So repubs have never had govt help?
> You sound like nothing but a hater, anything else new?
> Are you using soft bullets?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't speak for all republicans or conservatives, as for me, I never had to depend on the government to take care of me.
Click to expand...


Care to share some more?  Lets hear it!


----------



## Freewill

Saigon said:


> Freewill -
> 
> Are you really giving the Bush adminstration a pass for eight years of failed economic policies?



I am not absolving anyone who was involved from blame.  So are you giving Obama and the democrats after 3 1/2 years of doing exactly what they wanted with control of the Senate and WH and 3 years before that control of Congress NO blame?

Now, if you want to have a discussion on what caused the stock market crash which caused or was the result of the housing bubble burst then name the BUSH policy that you think caused the situation.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Fordsflylow said:


> Care to share some more?  Lets hear it!



In before:  _you drive on roads and mail letters so you are depending on gov to take care of you._


----------



## Billo_Really

Freewill said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill -
> 
> Are you really giving the Bush adminstration a pass for eight years of failed economic policies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not absolving anyone who was involved from blame.  So are you giving Obama and the democrats after 3 1/2 years of doing exactly what they wanted with control of the Senate and WH and 3 years before that control of Congress NO blame?
> 
> Now, if you want to have a discussion on what caused the stock market crash which caused or was the result of the housing bubble burst then name the BUSH policy that you think caused the situation.
Click to expand...

Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted, his tax cuts for the rich and starting two unecessary wars at a cost of $12 billion a month.

I just gave you 3.


----------



## Fordsflylow

Freewill said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill -
> 
> Are you really giving the Bush adminstration a pass for eight years of failed economic policies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not absolving anyone who was involved from blame.  So are you giving Obama and the democrats after 3 1/2 years of doing exactly what they wanted with control of the Senate and WH and 3 years before that control of Congress NO blame?
> 
> Now, if you want to have a discussion on what caused the stock market crash which caused or was the result of the housing bubble burst then name the BUSH policy that you think caused the situation.
Click to expand...


This is so easy it is pathetic!  Do you like THIS capitalism?  I have breaking news for ya, allowing for corporations and banks to become TOO BIG TO FAIL and MEGA undermines true capitalism.  It takes away competition which is a cornerstone.  Which party allowed for this to happen ya think?

Now that mega-corp's/banks are TOO BIG TO FAIL, is it really any wonder why no one has been charged or gone to jail?  Except of course one; Madoff, who soaked mostly the minority known as the 1%.

Please tell us all how our govt, who is actually owned by mega-X, is going to go after some entity that would bring down our economy?


----------



## Fordsflylow

loinboy said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill -
> 
> Are you really giving the Bush adminstration a pass for eight years of failed economic policies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not absolving anyone who was involved from blame.  So are you giving Obama and the democrats after 3 1/2 years of doing exactly what they wanted with control of the Senate and WH and 3 years before that control of Congress NO blame?
> 
> Now, if you want to have a discussion on what caused the stock market crash which caused or was the result of the housing bubble burst then name the BUSH policy that you think caused the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted, his tax cuts for the rich and starting two unecessary wars at a cost of $12 billion a month.
> 
> I just gave you 3.
Click to expand...


Lets not forget the $12 billion in CASH that was flown to Iraq and came up missing?  I wonder how exactly enough cash to fill 10's of semi's actually comes up missing in haliburton-land....er....cheneyland....er....Iraq>


----------



## Freewill

Fordsflylow said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill -
> 
> Are you really giving the Bush adminstration a pass for eight years of failed economic policies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not absolving anyone who was involved from blame.  So are you giving Obama and the democrats after 3 1/2 years of doing exactly what they wanted with control of the Senate and WH and 3 years before that control of Congress NO blame?
> 
> Now, if you want to have a discussion on what caused the stock market crash which caused or was the result of the housing bubble burst then name the BUSH policy that you think caused the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is so easy it is pathetic!  Do you like THIS capitalism?  I have breaking news for ya, allowing for corporations and banks to become TOO BIG TO FAIL and MEGA undermines true capitalism.  It takes away competition which is a cornerstone.  Which party allowed for this to happen ya think?
> 
> Now that mega-corp's/banks are TOO BIG TO FAIL, is it really any wonder why no one has been charged or gone to jail?  Except of course one; Madoff, who soaked mostly the minority known as the 1%.
> 
> Please tell us all how our govt, who is actually owned by mega-X, is going to go after some entity that would bring down our economy?
Click to expand...


Apparently it was too easy you didn't bother to answer.  What BUSH policy allowed the banks to get too big to fail?  Who says they are too big to fail?  Apparently Obama thinks so he didn't change banking direction.  What policy allowed the banks to get too big to fail?  You are just citing talking points.  Be specific.


----------



## Freewill

Fordsflylow said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not absolving anyone who was involved from blame.  So are you giving Obama and the democrats after 3 1/2 years of doing exactly what they wanted with control of the Senate and WH and 3 years before that control of Congress NO blame?
> 
> Now, if you want to have a discussion on what caused the stock market crash which caused or was the result of the housing bubble burst then name the BUSH policy that you think caused the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted, his tax cuts for the rich and starting two unecessary wars at a cost of $12 billion a month.
> 
> I just gave you 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets not forget the $12 billion in CASH that was flown to Iraq and came up missing?  I wonder how exactly enough cash to fill 10's of semi's actually comes up missing in haliburton-land....er....cheneyland....er....Iraq>
Click to expand...


Yes, there is A LOT of waste in whatever the government does.  That is the conservative point of view, get the government waste out of society and allow free enterprise to grow.  But you example is not an example of policy it is a talking point.


----------



## Fordsflylow

Freewill said:


> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not absolving anyone who was involved from blame.  So are you giving Obama and the democrats after 3 1/2 years of doing exactly what they wanted with control of the Senate and WH and 3 years before that control of Congress NO blame?
> 
> Now, if you want to have a discussion on what caused the stock market crash which caused or was the result of the housing bubble burst then name the BUSH policy that you think caused the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is so easy it is pathetic!  Do you like THIS capitalism?  I have breaking news for ya, allowing for corporations and banks to become TOO BIG TO FAIL and MEGA undermines true capitalism.  It takes away competition which is a cornerstone.  Which party allowed for this to happen ya think?
> 
> Now that mega-corp's/banks are TOO BIG TO FAIL, is it really any wonder why no one has been charged or gone to jail?  Except of course one; Madoff, who soaked mostly the minority known as the 1%.
> 
> Please tell us all how our govt, who is actually owned by mega-X, is going to go after some entity that would bring down our economy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently it was too easy you didn't bother to answer.  What BUSH policy allowed the banks to get too big to fail?  Who says they are too big to fail?  Apparently Obama thinks so he didn't change banking direction.  What policy allowed the banks to get too big to fail?  You are just citing talking points.  Be specific.
Click to expand...


Simple enough!  Dereg's AND taking the ability away to enforce the lame ass reg's that DID exist.  After 9/11 another spoiled rotten rich punk who bought and cheated his way into office, Bushy boy, moved close to 5,000 FBI agents from the SEC to other locations which opened the door for the gambling to begin.

How much did your 401K lose?


----------



## Fordsflylow

Freewill said:


> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted, his tax cuts for the rich and starting two unecessary wars at a cost of $12 billion a month.
> 
> I just gave you 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets not forget the $12 billion in CASH that was flown to Iraq and came up missing?  I wonder how exactly enough cash to fill 10's of semi's actually comes up missing in haliburton-land....er....cheneyland....er....Iraq>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is A LOT of waste in whatever the government does.  That is the conservative point of view, get the government waste out of society and allow free enterprise to grow.  But you example is not an example of policy it is a talking point.
Click to expand...


You'd have a point if this gov was in fact the gov of the PEOPLE, not the MINORITY 1% as it now and has been since trickle-down bs economics began.  Look at the big picture and put some real thought into it for a change

To get the waste out of gov would be to get the MINORITY 1% out of running what was started as We The People's gov.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fordsflylow said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not absolving anyone who was involved from blame.  So are you giving Obama and the democrats after 3 1/2 years of doing exactly what they wanted with control of the Senate and WH and 3 years before that control of Congress NO blame?
> 
> Now, if you want to have a discussion on what caused the stock market crash which caused or was the result of the housing bubble burst then name the BUSH policy that you think caused the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted, his tax cuts for the rich and starting two unecessary wars at a cost of $12 billion a month.
> 
> I just gave you 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets not forget the $12 billion in CASH that was flown to Iraq and came up missing?  I wonder how exactly enough cash to fill 10's of semi's actually comes up missing in haliburton-land....er....cheneyland....er....Iraq>
Click to expand...


The money was found, but keep telling your stories


----------



## Billo_Really

Freewill said:


> What BUSH policy allowed the banks to get too big to fail?


The policy of de-regulation.

By making  something legal, that had been illegal, for at least a half-century.


----------



## Fordsflylow

CrusaderFrank said:


> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted, his tax cuts for the rich and starting two unecessary wars at a cost of $12 billion a month.
> 
> I just gave you 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets not forget the $12 billion in CASH that was flown to Iraq and came up missing?  I wonder how exactly enough cash to fill 10's of semi's actually comes up missing in haliburton-land....er....cheneyland....er....Iraq>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The money was found, but keep telling your stories
Click to expand...


Elaborate!?!


----------



## Billo_Really

CrusaderFrank said:


> The money was found...


But was it returned?


----------



## Fordsflylow

He's just a flamer, I'm not really expecting a reply worth reading.  He usually posts hate-filled bs one liners.

I like your sig loinboy.  Couldn't be more true!


----------



## zeke

Freewill, you and I must have positions that are very similiar.

Bush was the best President that we have ever had. He did absolutly nothing wrong. Every decision he made was the right one and he left the incoming President with a vibrant thriving economy. His decisions on war were perfect. Iraq does have nukes and only Bush knew that and we should worship him for saving us. Tax cuts have no cost associated with them and only Bush knew that and he should have cut taxes on the ultra wealthy to zero and the trickle down would have lifted us even higher.
There was no housing crisis or banking crisis under George Bush. That was just the lame stream media fabricating a story to save Barney Frank. The housing crisis in particular had nothing to do with George.
He hated that people could buy houses and knew nothing good would come of regular people owning homes.

Why Bush was such a fantastic president that it is almost like he was never even there. Just went from Clinton to Obama with your hero in the middle.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Fordsflylow said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to look at the broad/big picture.  You know, like the facts that a relative few rich fucking assholes are trying to BUY this election and are funding only one side - the con side.  Which makes it easy to assume that they expect something in return for their investments.  What do you think that might be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what about the rich fucking assholes who fund only the Liberal side?....dont you think they want something in return?......what do you think it might be?.....the trouble with many people here is they think the real rich Democrats are different than the real rich Conservatives.....when push comes to shove...see who they side with....the people or themselves.....rich people will side with other rich people because they have something in common.....its called Money.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could have done better than that avoiding answering my question, AND asking one instead.  What will the rich fucking asshole get in return for supporting a con with oodles of money?  Seeing as you're so good at not answering questions I'll try again but a different question; name a "rich fucking asshole" who funds only the left?  I'd bet my bottom dollar if he/she funds the left he/she is not an asshole, as are the numerous rich fucking assholes who do fund only the right AND expect a great deal in return.
> 
> The wealthy who fund the left know they are not going to get anything in return which is why corporate money tends to be lopsided toward the right/wrong side.  Those who fund the left imo show a concern for those who's voice is drowned out by the money AND try and counter it with money.
Click to expand...

*

You could have done better than that avoiding answering my question, AND asking one instead. *

i did think i needed to answer your question if i agree with you

* Seeing as you're so good at not answering questions*

since your new here and dont know anything about anyone ill let that go by....
*
 name a "rich fucking asshole" who funds only the left?*
Soros

* I'd bet my bottom dollar if he/she funds the left he/she is not an asshole, *

probably because you agree with their Politics....duh....

*fucking assholes who do fund only the right AND expect a great deal in return.*

and if you dont think those who fund the Left dont want anything in return...then they have done their job on you.....
*
The wealthy who fund the left know they are not going to get anything in return which is why corporate money tends to be lopsided toward the right/wrong side.  Those who fund the left imo show a concern for those who's voice is drowned out by the money AND try and counter it with money.*

and you fell for this?.....are you that stupid?....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Fordsflylow said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals founded this country
> 
> What have conservatives done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how many times are you going to bring this up?...........and how many times are you going to be told Liberal/Conservative in those days may not have meant as much as it seems to today....they both had a common goal.....they wanted to be free of the British.....the Colonist who were against them were here,but were British at heart obviously....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind/type of British were they against?
Click to expand...


what type of British were they against?.....are you serious?.....ok ill play....the Type A kind....


----------



## Harry Dresden

loinboy said:


> Did it ever occur to you, that when you broadstroke an entire group of people and act as though they were one entity with one thought process and one goal, that there's something wrong with you and your ability to reason?



remember this next time you are in a thread with Truthmatters,Dean,Chris,Franco and Dudley.......especially Dean and Chris....


----------



## Harry Dresden

OODA_Loop said:


> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to share some more?  Lets hear it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In before:  _you drive on roads and mail letters so you are depending on gov to take care of you._
Click to expand...


we pay taxes to drive on those roads....so we are getting something in return.....and the PO has a Monopoly on First Class Mail.....so you dont have much choice and your paying for that service so the Govt is not taking care of you there....you dont want to use it ...dont ...your choice....


----------



## Harry Dresden

loinboy said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill -
> 
> Are you really giving the Bush adminstration a pass for eight years of failed economic policies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not absolving anyone who was involved from blame.  So are you giving Obama and the democrats after 3 1/2 years of doing exactly what they wanted with control of the Senate and WH and 3 years before that control of Congress NO blame?
> 
> Now, if you want to have a discussion on what caused the stock market crash which caused or was the result of the housing bubble burst then name the BUSH policy that you think caused the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted, his tax cuts for the rich and *starting two unecessary wars *at a cost of $12 billion a month.
> 
> I just gave you 3.
Click to expand...

were you part of the 10% of the Country who was against Bush attacking Afghanistan?...


----------



## zeke

Harry Dresden said:


> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> what about the rich fucking assholes who fund only the Liberal side?....dont you think they want something in return?......what do you think it might be?.....the trouble with many people here is they think the real rich Democrats are different than the real rich Conservatives.....when push comes to shove...see who they side with....the people or themselves.....rich people will side with other rich people because they have something in common.....its called Money.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could have done better than that avoiding answering my question, AND asking one instead.  What will the rich fucking asshole get in return for supporting a con with oodles of money?  Seeing as you're so good at not answering questions I'll try again but a different question; name a "rich fucking asshole" who funds only the left?  I'd bet my bottom dollar if he/she funds the left he/she is not an asshole, as are the numerous rich fucking assholes who do fund only the right AND expect a great deal in return.
> 
> The wealthy who fund the left know they are not going to get anything in return which is why corporate money tends to be lopsided toward the right/wrong side.  Those who fund the left imo show a concern for those who's voice is drowned out by the money AND try and counter it with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> You could have done better than that avoiding answering my question, AND asking one instead. *
> 
> i did think i needed to answer your question if i agree with you
> 
> * Seeing as you're so good at not answering questions*
> 
> since your new here and dont know anything about anyone ill let that go by....
> *
> name a "rich fucking asshole" who funds only the left?*
> Soros
> 
> * I'd bet my bottom dollar if he/she funds the left he/she is not an asshole, *
> 
> probably because you agree with their Politics....duh....
> 
> *fucking assholes who do fund only the right AND expect a great deal in return.*
> 
> and if you dont think those who fund the Left dont want anything in return...then they have done their job on you.....
> *
> The wealthy who fund the left know they are not going to get anything in return which is why corporate money tends to be lopsided toward the right/wrong side.  Those who fund the left imo show a concern for those who's voice is drowned out by the money AND try and counter it with money.*
> 
> and you fell for this?.....are you that stupid?....
Click to expand...


OK, Soros wants something done to benefit him in exchange for all the millions he has given. Now what is it George wants? I don't know, but he wants something. Access maybe?
A more level playing field maybe. He is opposed to what the ultra rich right wingers want and is willing to put his money up to fight whatever.

Now you. What do the Koch brothers want? Addleson? Other rich mega donors?

Maybe it is fighting fire with fire.

But no one who is worth billions willingly spends hundreds of millions to accomplish something and not expect to get a payback. They didn't get to the top 1% by being stupid.


----------



## Harry Dresden

zeke said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could have done better than that avoiding answering my question, AND asking one instead.  What will the rich fucking asshole get in return for supporting a con with oodles of money?  Seeing as you're so good at not answering questions I'll try again but a different question; name a "rich fucking asshole" who funds only the left?  I'd bet my bottom dollar if he/she funds the left he/she is not an asshole, as are the numerous rich fucking assholes who do fund only the right AND expect a great deal in return.
> 
> The wealthy who fund the left know they are not going to get anything in return which is why corporate money tends to be lopsided toward the right/wrong side.  Those who fund the left imo show a concern for those who's voice is drowned out by the money AND try and counter it with money.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> You could have done better than that avoiding answering my question, AND asking one instead. *
> 
> i did think i needed to answer your question if i agree with you
> 
> * Seeing as you're so good at not answering questions*
> 
> since your new here and dont know anything about anyone ill let that go by....
> *
> name a "rich fucking asshole" who funds only the left?*
> Soros
> 
> * I'd bet my bottom dollar if he/she funds the left he/she is not an asshole, *
> 
> probably because you agree with their Politics....duh....
> 
> *fucking assholes who do fund only the right AND expect a great deal in return.*
> 
> and if you dont think those who fund the Left dont want anything in return...then they have done their job on you.....
> *
> The wealthy who fund the left know they are not going to get anything in return which is why corporate money tends to be lopsided toward the right/wrong side.  Those who fund the left imo show a concern for those who's voice is drowned out by the money AND try and counter it with money.*
> 
> and you fell for this?.....are you that stupid?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, Soros wants something done to benefit him in exchange for all the millions he has given. Now what is it George wants? I don't know, but he wants something. Access maybe?
> A more level playing field maybe. He is opposed to what the ultra rich right wingers want and is willing to put his money up to fight whatever.
> 
> Now you. What do the Koch brothers want? Addleson? Other rich mega donors?
> 
> Maybe it is fighting fire with fire.
> *
> But no one who is worth billions willingly spends hundreds of millions to accomplish something and not expect to get a payback. They didn't get to the top 1% by being stupid*.
Click to expand...


tell that to the Ford guy.....i dont give a shit what Party a person belongs too.....in Politics you dont give millions away without expecting something back.....and this includes Rich Liberals.....and i dont mean Bill Mahr donating a Million.....i mean people or Corporations  who donate multi-million's to a Political Campaign or Party......


----------



## zeke

Harry Dresden said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> You could have done better than that avoiding answering my question, AND asking one instead. *
> 
> i did think i needed to answer your question if i agree with you
> 
> * Seeing as you're so good at not answering questions*
> 
> since your new here and dont know anything about anyone ill let that go by....
> *
> name a "rich fucking asshole" who funds only the left?*
> Soros
> 
> * I'd bet my bottom dollar if he/she funds the left he/she is not an asshole, *
> 
> probably because you agree with their Politics....duh....
> 
> *fucking assholes who do fund only the right AND expect a great deal in return.*
> 
> and if you dont think those who fund the Left dont want anything in return...then they have done their job on you.....
> *
> The wealthy who fund the left know they are not going to get anything in return which is why corporate money tends to be lopsided toward the right/wrong side.  Those who fund the left imo show a concern for those who's voice is drowned out by the money AND try and counter it with money.*
> 
> and you fell for this?.....are you that stupid?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, Soros wants something done to benefit him in exchange for all the millions he has given. Now what is it George wants? I don't know, but he wants something. Access maybe?
> A more level playing field maybe. He is opposed to what the ultra rich right wingers want and is willing to put his money up to fight whatever.
> 
> Now you. What do the Koch brothers want? Addleson? Other rich mega donors?
> 
> Maybe it is fighting fire with fire.
> *
> But no one who is worth billions willingly spends hundreds of millions to accomplish something and not expect to get a payback. They didn't get to the top 1% by being stupid*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> tell that to the Ford guy.....i dont give a shit what Party a person belongs too.....in Politics you dont give millions away without expecting something back.....and this includes Rich Liberals.....and i dont mean Bill Mahr donating a Million.....i mean people or Corporations  who donate multi-million's to a Political Campaign or Party......
Click to expand...




I think he (Ford) can read. Seems we agree with the idea the mega donors want something in return for their millions of dollars.

Would you think that there are some ultra rich who might have desires to help a broad base of people (Bill Gates comes to mind) and their are others who desire to only help themselves and their friends and supporters?

What do you think the Koch Brothers want? Addleson?

And how is it good for America in general to have the ultra rich be able to give so much money that they are able to buy influence and elections and enable the politicians to basically ignore us regular folk? How is that "good"?


----------



## Ernie S.

loinboy said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill -
> 
> Are you really giving the Bush adminstration a pass for eight years of failed economic policies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not absolving anyone who was involved from blame.  So are you giving Obama and the democrats after 3 1/2 years of doing exactly what they wanted with control of the Senate and WH and 3 years before that control of Congress NO blame?
> 
> Now, if you want to have a discussion on what caused the stock market crash which caused or was the result of the housing bubble burst then name the BUSH policy that you think caused the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted, his tax cuts for the rich and starting two unecessary wars at a cost of $12 billion a month.
> 
> I just gave you 3.
Click to expand...


*Why do people hate Liberals?*

This woman is trying to push me over the edge...







I don't "hate" anyone. Seems to me that hate is a word Progressives ascribe to Conservatives the same way they ascribe "racist" to anyone who criticizes the policies of the President.

1. Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted,

Like Barney Frank saying that Fannie Mae was in fine shape when the Bush Admin tried to "regulate" it?

2. his tax cuts for the rich. 

You do realize that everyone got tax cuts, do you not? That the poor got even larger EITC's; receiving larger refunds than they had paid in?

3. and starting two _unecessary_ wars at a cost of $12 billion a month.

Both wars had broad bipartisan support and were engaged to end terrorist attacks on our citizens and based on near universally accepted intelligence.
Explain why we got involved in Libya and document the bipartisan support.
Extra points for explaining how the Libyan campaign was not in violation of the War Powers Act.


----------



## Ernie S.

zeke said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could have done better than that avoiding answering my question, AND asking one instead.  What will the rich fucking asshole get in return for supporting a con with oodles of money?  Seeing as you're so good at not answering questions I'll try again but a different question; name a "rich fucking asshole" who funds only the left?  I'd bet my bottom dollar if he/she funds the left he/she is not an asshole, as are the numerous rich fucking assholes who do fund only the right AND expect a great deal in return.
> 
> The wealthy who fund the left know they are not going to get anything in return which is why corporate money tends to be lopsided toward the right/wrong side.  Those who fund the left imo show a concern for those who's voice is drowned out by the money AND try and counter it with money.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> You could have done better than that avoiding answering my question, AND asking one instead. *
> 
> i did think i needed to answer your question if i agree with you
> 
> * Seeing as you're so good at not answering questions*
> 
> since your new here and dont know anything about anyone ill let that go by....
> *
> name a "rich fucking asshole" who funds only the left?*
> Soros
> 
> * I'd bet my bottom dollar if he/she funds the left he/she is not an asshole, *
> 
> probably because you agree with their Politics....duh....
> 
> *fucking assholes who do fund only the right AND expect a great deal in return.*
> 
> and if you dont think those who fund the Left dont want anything in return...then they have done their job on you.....
> *
> The wealthy who fund the left know they are not going to get anything in return which is why corporate money tends to be lopsided toward the right/wrong side.  Those who fund the left imo show a concern for those who's voice is drowned out by the money AND try and counter it with money.*
> 
> and you fell for this?.....are you that stupid?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, Soros wants something done to benefit him in exchange for all the millions he has given. Now what is it George wants? I don't know, but he wants something. Access maybe?
> A more level playing field maybe. He is opposed to what the ultra rich right wingers want and is willing to put his money up to fight whatever.
> 
> Now you. What do the Koch brothers want? Addleson? Other rich mega donors?
> 
> Maybe it is fighting fire with fire.
> 
> But no one who is worth billions willingly spends hundreds of millions to accomplish something and not expect to get a payback. They didn't get to the top 1% by being stupid.
Click to expand...


OK, the Koch brothers want something done to benefit them in exchange for all the millions they have given. Now what is it they want? I don't know, but they want something. Access maybe?
A more level playing field maybe. They are opposed to what the ultra rich left wingers, the public sector labor unions and the OWS scum want and are willing to put their money up to fight whatever.


----------



## Sactowndog

Harry Dresden said:


> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the businesses and employees that get the 400mil in business revenue and the taxes they pay...yes indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to look at the broad/big picture.  You know, like the facts that a relative few rich fucking assholes are trying to BUY this election and are funding only one side - the con side.  Which makes it easy to assume that they expect something in return for their investments.  What do you think that might be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what about the rich fucking assholes who fund only the Liberal side?....dont you think they want something in return?......what do you think it might be?.....the trouble with many people here is they think the real rich Democrats are different than the real rich Conservatives.....when push comes to shove...see who they side with....the people or themselves.....rich people will side with other rich people because they have something in common.....its called Money.....
Click to expand...


I don't think this is true at all as I believe most people want what's best for the country.  But I will say a friend of mine who is a business broker and is worth millions has a different opinion.  While he and I are aligned he believes much of the wall street money is only interested in enriching themselves and lowering or eliminating their taxes regardless of the effect on the country.


----------



## HUGGY

Harry Dresden said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not absolving anyone who was involved from blame.  So are you giving Obama and the democrats after 3 1/2 years of doing exactly what they wanted with control of the Senate and WH and 3 years before that control of Congress NO blame?
> 
> Now, if you want to have a discussion on what caused the stock market crash which caused or was the result of the housing bubble burst then name the BUSH policy that you think caused the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted, his tax cuts for the rich and *starting two unecessary wars *at a cost of $12 billion a month.
> 
> I just gave you 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *were you part of the 10% of the Country who was against Bush attacking Afghanistan*?...
Click to expand...


That wasn't the stated mission.  Bush said he would go to the gates of hell or some such nonsense to get those that committed 9/11.  He lied about that too as he seemed to purposely let Ossama escape in Tora Bora.

If Bush had stated the truth of what he wanted to do which was get footprints in Afgahnistan so he could invade Iraq, Ossama be damned, he would have never had support.   Bush and Cheney and Rice and Powell lied and moved the goal posts constantly with a heavy dose of fear mongering and lying bullshit to get us where we are today in those countries.  

Bush could have easily sent in special ops with orders to kill Bin Ladin and got it over with in a couple of weeks.  

He did not.  He wasted over a trillion dollars ..got twice as many Americans killed as died on 9/11...was responsible for probably a million Afgans and Iraqis killed and maimed..several million displaced.  

Don't mistake kindness for letting Bush off the hook for his blundering, plundering and murder for weakness or amnesia.  If right was right Bush should be in prison.  It's way too soon for the lying republicans to rewrite the history of Bush's crimes.  Better leave it alone.  The statute of limitations on treason, war profiteering and murder will never expire.


----------



## Sactowndog

Toro said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you're not an American.  Of course, you can be a liberal and an American, but the term "liberal" is used as an insult in the American lexicon.  Very few national politicians get up on stage and call themselves a liberal, even the liberal ones.
> 
> To conservatives - rightly or wrongly - liberals are the embodiment of all that is anti-American.  In American mythology - and I do not use the term "mythology" in a pejorative sense - the individual is sovereign.  Individuals are free from government interference to pursue life, liberty and happiness.  Of course, like all mythologies, this is a generalization and actual practice is rife with contradictions, but the central concept is generally correct.  To be an American is to be a free individual.  This does not mean freedom from hunger or freedom from homelessness, as it means to parts of the European left.  It means freedom of action from government coercion.  Liberals may reasonably differ from this interpretation but liberals generally want to use government to right social wrongs.  Conservatives view this as an intrusion onto the sovereignty of the individual, which they view as an assault on what it means to be an American.
Click to expand...


Toro I would agree with you if you substituted libertarian with conservative.  Today's social conservatives are nothing of the sort you describe.  They are more concerned with the nation being a "Christian" nation than individual liberties.  In fact they will throw many liberties under the bus in the name of fighting the enemies of their faith: gays, Muslims, etc.


----------



## Sactowndog

Shelzin said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their economic theory's are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> The world is flat.
Click to expand...


And in this context both sides policies are destructive to the American middle class.  Trickle down isn't such a great theory when the down it trickles to is in China and Vietnam.  

Sadly conservatives today are divided into two groups:  those too uneducated to understand and those to self centered to care.


----------



## Sactowndog

Fordsflylow said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you work for Exxon? lol You don't believe the planet is warming? I'll go with objective scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, my first job was with Dames and Moore, you wouldn't know who they were as they were the worlds first environmental geology company.  You know folks who actually try and fix the damage man has done to the planet, unlike you folks who just want to tax people to pollute more.
> 
> And as far as objective scientists go, when you can show me one of those "objective" scientists who isn't dependent on government largesse for the AGW "research" they do, you let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One thing is perfectly clear to me when it comes to the con's.  They put money above all, even human life.  Therefore their starting point is warped which leads to warped solutions(?).
> 
> This is a bit off track but ponder this; if this country could/would just focus on the massive WASTE and inefficiency we could save so much of our home (Earth) and money.  You know lead by example!
> 
> The US only gets around 30% efficiency rate from it's power grid, from generation to the consumer.  Which means 60% of a unit of energy is pissed away.  In comparison, Japan wastes 10% with 90% efficiency rate.  That's just one segment!  Virtually every segment of US society wastes beyond belief which is why we as a nation (5% of worlds population) wastes 30% of the worlds resources.  Time to wake up to the fact that this economy is UNSUSTAINABLE.
> 
> Instead of we American's bitching about China sending us their poisonous trinkets and such we should quit demanding/consuming them.  Simple really!!
Click to expand...


Let me put it in economic not moral terms.  Most people spend the entire budget on 4 basic categories: food, energy, housing and health care.  Of those 4, by any benchmarking standard, the US is hugely inefficient in energy and healthcare.  As a nation, if we can remake those sectors and make them more efficient we will see a huge economic boost as the entire population will have more discretionary dollars.  

But to accomplish this efficiency we have to examine what assumptions we hold dear that are in fact not working and makes us less efficient.  This simply must be done and Obama is 110% right to be focusing in these areas and the Republicans in Congress are 110% wrong to be blocking him merely in an attempt to keep him from being re-elected or to protect those companies who are benefiting from this inefficiency.


----------



## kaz

Sactowndog said:


> Let me put it in economic not moral terms.  Most people spend the entire budget on 4 basic categories: food, energy, housing and health care.  Of those 4, by any benchmarking standard, the US is hugely inefficient in energy and healthcare



Let's examine the big issues:

Energy ->  Government endlessly impedes companies from drilling off our shores, in Alaska, and on Federal land, government blocks new Nuclear plants, government restricts horizontal fracking, government blocks coal plants including clean burning coal, government blocks building new oil refineries, government has created roughly 30 local gas blends and government wastes billions on inefficient technologies...

Medical ->  government creates endless mandates on insurance carriers like paying for things like sex change operations and hair transplants, government created a system of endless frivolous lawsuits so a doctor starting out can have a six figure insurance policy they have to cover, government blocks selling policies across State lines, government gives employers tax breaks but not individual policies so people can't manage their own healthcare plans, government blocks people from taking their coverage with them if they leave their job.  Government abets foreign countries stealing American pharmaceuticals without paying for the R&D that was used to develop them so American consumers pay higher prices...

So your read of the situation is the problem is not enough government.  Gotcha...


----------



## WillowTree

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



You are new to the board? Then you should do more reading, If you don't see the attacks on the right from the left you must be A. blind, B. willfully biased, or C. unable to comprehend what you read.


----------



## kaz

WillowTree said:


> You are new to the board? Then you should do more reading, If you don't see the attacks on the right from the left you must be A. blind, B. willfully biased, or C. unable to comprehend what you read.



When liberals call Republicans racist, sexist homophobes that isn't personal.  If you criticize the Democratic Party's energy policy that is a personal attack on every liberal.


----------



## GoneBezerk

Being used as a prostitute at I-95 truck stops since 18 has made her eyes go cross-eyed. She focus better on her target.



Ernie S. said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not absolving anyone who was involved from blame.  So are you giving Obama and the democrats after 3 1/2 years of doing exactly what they wanted with control of the Senate and WH and 3 years before that control of Congress NO blame?
> 
> Now, if you want to have a discussion on what caused the stock market crash which caused or was the result of the housing bubble burst then name the BUSH policy that you think caused the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted, his tax cuts for the rich and starting two unecessary wars at a cost of $12 billion a month.
> 
> I just gave you 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why do people hate Liberals?*
> 
> This woman is trying to push me over the edge...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "hate" anyone. Seems to me that hate is a word Progressives ascribe to Conservatives the same way they ascribe "racist" to anyone who criticizes the policies of the President.
> 
> 1. Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted,
> 
> Like Barney Frank saying that Fannie Mae was in fine shape when the Bush Admin tried to "regulate" it?
> 
> 2. his tax cuts for the rich.
> 
> You do realize that everyone got tax cuts, do you not? That the poor got even larger EITC's; receiving larger refunds than they had paid in?
> 
> 3. and starting two _unecessary_ wars at a cost of $12 billion a month.
> 
> Both wars had broad bipartisan support and were engaged to end terrorist attacks on our citizens and based on near universally accepted intelligence.
> Explain why we got involved in Libya and document the bipartisan support.
> Extra points for explaining how the Libyan campaign was not in violation of the War Powers Act.
Click to expand...


----------



## Sactowndog

kaz said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me put it in economic not moral terms.  Most people spend the entire budget on 4 basic categories: food, energy, housing and health care.  Of those 4, by any benchmarking standard, the US is hugely inefficient in energy and healthcare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's examine the big issues:
> 
> Energy ->  Government endlessly impedes companies from drilling off our shores, in Alaska, and on Federal land, government blocks new Nuclear plants, government restricts horizontal fracking, government blocks coal plants including clean burning coal, government blocks building new oil refineries, government has created roughly 30 local gas blends and government wastes billions on inefficient technologies...
> ..
Click to expand...


Let me take these one at a time....   

1) In terms of negative government mandates Democrats aren't alone.  The California blend was mandated by a Republican Congress largely at the behest of Archer Daniels Midland.  Would the drilling projects you mentioned be viable without the tax credits given to oil and gas?  All types of energy receive government assistance today.  If you want the government out of energy why just mention the ones you don't like.  Also it is common for new technologies to need a push to generate critical mass for distribution.  You should be more concerned with old technologies sucking at the government teat.  

2) The government should fund basic research in paradigm shifting techologies.  Much of the technology we have today from composites to the Internet comes from government funding. 

3) Government has always played a role in infrastructure.  The national highway system was government funded and laid the ground work for years of economic expansion.  Upgrading our infrastructure to more efficiently generate and distribute electricity is a valid role of government.  

4) The tragedy of the commons is real.  It is a valid purpose of government to balance protecting the environment with economic matters.  Having grown up in the smog of LA and having seen China, I don't think anyone wants to eliminate that balance.


----------



## kaz

Sactowndog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me put it in economic not moral terms.  Most people spend the entire budget on 4 basic categories: food, energy, housing and health care.  Of those 4, by any benchmarking standard, the US is hugely inefficient in energy and healthcare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's examine the big issues:
> 
> Energy ->  Government endlessly impedes companies from drilling off our shores, in Alaska, and on Federal land, government blocks new Nuclear plants, government restricts horizontal fracking, government blocks coal plants including clean burning coal, government blocks building new oil refineries, government has created roughly 30 local gas blends and government wastes billions on inefficient technologies...
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me take these one at a time....
> 
> 1) In terms of negative government mandates Democrats aren't alone.  The California blend was mandated by a Republican Congress largely at the behest of Archer Daniels Midland.  Would the drilling projects you mentioned be viable without the tax credits given to oil and gas?  All types of energy receive government assistance today.  If you want the government out of energy why just mention the ones you don't like.  Also it is common for new technologies to need a push to generate critical mass for distribution.  You should be more concerned with old technologies sucking at the government teat.
> 
> 2) The government should fund basic research in paradigm shifting techologies.  Much of the technology we have today from composites to the Internet comes from government funding.
> 
> 3) Government has always played a role in infrastructure.  The national highway system was government funded and laid the ground work for years of economic expansion.  Upgrading our infrastructure to more efficiently generate and distribute electricity is a valid role of government.
> 
> 4) The tragedy of the commons is real.  It is a valid purpose of government to balance protecting the environment with economic matters.  Having grown up in the smog of LA and having seen China, I don't think anyone wants to eliminate that balance.
Click to expand...


So you stated we have price inefficiencies, I gave you a bunch of real reasons for that, and your argument is a few weak rationalizations for little pieces of them?  And that is your solution to fixing energy prices?

Can't argue with that...


----------



## Sactowndog

kaz said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me put it in economic not moral terms.  Most people spend the entire budget on 4 basic categories: food, energy, housing and health care.  Of those 4, by any benchmarking standard, the US is hugely inefficient in energy and healthcare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's examine the big issues:
> 
> Medical ->  government creates endless mandates on insurance carriers like paying for things like sex change operations and hair transplants, government created a system of endless frivolous lawsuits so a doctor starting out can have a six figure insurance policy they have to cover, government blocks selling policies across State lines, government gives employers tax breaks but not individual policies so people can't manage their own healthcare plans, government blocks people from taking their coverage with them if they leave their job.  Government abets foreign countries stealing American pharmaceuticals without paying for the R&D that was used to develop them so American consumers pay higher prices...
> 
> So your read of the situation is the problem is not enough government.  Gotcha...
Click to expand...


You leave out the most important mandate which is government mandates that hospitals treat the uninsured who enter their emergency room.  

The big problem with healthcare is we want it to be free market but we don't accept what that means.  A demand curve requires people drop out of the market as the cost rises.  Applied to healthcare that means as the cost rises at each point the decision is made to let the entity die rather than pay the price.  These decisions occur everyday in animal health but never occur in human health care.  Without it you can't have a demand curve and without a demand curve you can't have a true market based system.  

That means you have to have a pseudo market solution that effectively accounts for the fact that we are unwilling to let people exit the market and the means government has to be involved to some extent.


----------



## Harry Dresden

zeke said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, Soros wants something done to benefit him in exchange for all the millions he has given. Now what is it George wants? I don't know, but he wants something. Access maybe?
> A more level playing field maybe. He is opposed to what the ultra rich right wingers want and is willing to put his money up to fight whatever.
> 
> Now you. What do the Koch brothers want? Addleson? Other rich mega donors?
> 
> Maybe it is fighting fire with fire.
> *
> But no one who is worth billions willingly spends hundreds of millions to accomplish something and not expect to get a payback. They didn't get to the top 1% by being stupid*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tell that to the Ford guy.....i dont give a shit what Party a person belongs too.....in Politics you dont give millions away without expecting something back.....and this includes Rich Liberals.....and i dont mean Bill Mahr donating a Million.....i mean people or Corporations  who donate multi-million's to a Political Campaign or Party......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he (Ford) can read. Seems we agree with the idea the mega donors want something in return for their millions of dollars.
> 
> Would you think that there are some ultra rich who might have desires to help a broad base of people (Bill Gates comes to mind) and their are others who desire to only help themselves and their friends and supporters?
> 
> What do you think the Koch Brothers want? Addleson?
> 
> And how is it good for America in general to have the ultra rich be able to give so much money that they are able to buy influence and elections and enable the politicians to basically ignore us regular folk? How is that "good"?
Click to expand...

*
Would you think that there are some ultra rich who might have desires to help a broad base of people (Bill Gates comes to mind)
*
yes i do....but these people usually give money directly to who they are trying to help......and by the way one of the Koch Bros has given millions to research centers and the like around the Country......so its not all politics with him.....
*
 and their are others who desire to only help themselves and their friends and supporters?
*
yes those who give to Political Campaigns or Politicians on ANY level....

*What do you think the Koch Brothers want? *

i dont know....but im sure their Money comes with a price.....

*
And how is it good for America in general to have the ultra rich be able to give so much money that they are able to buy influence and elections and enable the politicians to basically ignore us regular folk? How is that "good"?*

its not good.....i feel in the political world anyone who gives A LOT of money wants something in return.....and it doesnt look good for the recipient either.....what was promised?..........Rich Democrat,Rich Republican.....it doesnt matter....when push comes to shove the Rich will stick together......they dont want to lose what they have.....do you think Koch or Soros would want to live on 50 thousand a year?....


----------



## kaz

Sactowndog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me put it in economic not moral terms.  Most people spend the entire budget on 4 basic categories: food, energy, housing and health care.  Of those 4, by any benchmarking standard, the US is hugely inefficient in energy and healthcare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's examine the big issues:
> 
> Medical ->  government creates endless mandates on insurance carriers like paying for things like sex change operations and hair transplants, government created a system of endless frivolous lawsuits so a doctor starting out can have a six figure insurance policy they have to cover, government blocks selling policies across State lines, government gives employers tax breaks but not individual policies so people can't manage their own healthcare plans, government blocks people from taking their coverage with them if they leave their job.  Government abets foreign countries stealing American pharmaceuticals without paying for the R&D that was used to develop them so American consumers pay higher prices...
> 
> So your read of the situation is the problem is not enough government.  Gotcha...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You leave out the most important mandate which is government mandates that hospitals treat the uninsured who enter their emergency room.
> 
> The big problem with healthcare is we want it to be free market but we don't accept what that means.  A demand curve requires people drop out of the market as the cost rises.  Applied to healthcare that means as the cost rises at each point the decision is made to let the entity die rather than pay the price.  These decisions occur everyday in animal health but never occur in human health care.  Without it you can't have a demand curve and without a demand curve you can't have a true market based system.
> 
> That means you have to have a pseudo market solution that effectively accounts for the fact that we are unwilling to let people exit the market and the means government has to be involved to some extent.
Click to expand...


And therefore government can fix it?  Hmm...


----------



## Billo_Really

Harry Dresden said:


> remember this next time you are in a thread with Truthmatters,Dean,Chris,Franco and Dudley.......especially Dean and Chris....


I never politicize logical deductive reasoning.  Whenever I see flawed logic in someone's post, I'll say something about it.  And I don't care if its a liberal post or a conservative post.  There's no place for irrational reasoning when we are discussing politics.  And if someone comes back and explains their logic in more detail and it becomes apparent there was something I didn't take into consideration, I got no problem admitting I'm wrong.

What really pisses my gord, are these dumbshits who offer no evidence   to backup their claim and just act like they've proved their point.


----------



## GoneBezerk

Oh the irony....dumbfuck.

I guess you hate yourself.



loinboy said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> remember this next time you are in a thread with Truthmatters,Dean,Chris,Franco and Dudley.......especially Dean and Chris....
> 
> 
> 
> I never politicize logical deductive reasoning.  Whenever I see flawed logic in someone's post, I'll say something about it.  And I don't care if its a liberal post or a conservative post.  There's no place for irrational reasoning when we are discussing politics.  And if someone comes back and explains their logic in more detail and it becomes apparent there was something I didn't take into consideration, I got no problem admitting I'm wrong.
> 
> What really pisses my gord, are these dumbshits who offer no evidence   to backup their claim and just act like they've proved their point.
Click to expand...


----------



## thanatos144

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



I dont hate liberals.....None of you are liberals you are all progressives and I dont hate them I just fight against them cause I love my country.


----------



## Billo_Really

thanatos144 said:


> I dont hate liberals.....None of you are liberals you are all progressives and I dont hate them I just fight against them cause I love my country.


Do you support:

the war in Iraq
the Patriot Act
indefinate detention
Because if you do, you don't love this country.


----------



## Billo_Really

GoneBezerk said:


> Oh the irony....dumbfuck.
> 
> I guess you hate yourself.


That makes absolutely no sense, but you couldn't pass up the attempt to appear witty.


----------



## GoneBezerk

Admit it, you address yourself as "Idiot" in the mirror.



loinboy said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the irony....dumbfuck.
> 
> I guess you hate yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense, but you couldn't pass up the attempt to appear witty.
Click to expand...


----------



## thanatos144

loinboy said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont hate liberals.....None of you are liberals you are all progressives and I dont hate them I just fight against them cause I love my country.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support:
> 
> the war in Iraq
> the Patriot Act
> indefinate detention
> Because if you do, you don't love this country.
Click to expand...


Are you asking if I agree with Obama?


----------



## GoneBezerk

Oh no....according to YOU, the majority of the CIA and US military "don't love this country."

Meanwhile you're in a mold invested trailer home digging the Doritos from your pubic hairs telling them they're unAmerican.



loinboy said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont hate liberals.....None of you are liberals you are all progressives and I dont hate them I just fight against them cause I love my country.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support:
> 
> the war in Iraq
> the Patriot Act
> indefinate detention
> Because if you do, you don't love this country.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bfgrn

Freewill said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill -
> 
> Are you really giving the Bush adminstration a pass for eight years of failed economic policies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not absolving anyone who was involved from blame.  So are you giving Obama and the democrats after 3 1/2 years of doing exactly what they wanted with control of the Senate and WH and 3 years before that control of Congress NO blame?
> 
> Now, if you want to have a discussion on what caused the stock market crash which caused or was the result of the housing bubble burst then name the BUSH policy that you think caused the situation.
Click to expand...


You see this is the problem with today's right wing Fox News brainwashed parrots. We don't argue over philosophy, we argue over facts vs. the propaganda LIES the right wing parrots chirp.

I'd be happy to school you on what caused the stock market crash and the housing bubble burst, but it will be very painful for you to face. I will tell you right now what DIDN'T cause it...it was NOT Fannie, it was NOT Freddie, it was NOT selling homes to lower income Americans and it was NOT government regulations. It was cause by a LACK of government regulation of the private sector.

But if you insist on blaming government...START HERE

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it soundsa government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgagesderivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the Ownership Society


----------



## Billo_Really

GoneBezerk said:


> Oh no....according to YOU, the majority of the CIA and US military "don't love this country."
> 
> Meanwhile you're in a mold invested trailer home digging the Doritos from your pubic hairs telling them they're unAmerican.


Now you're just making more shit up because you got no point.


----------



## Billo_Really

thanatos144 said:


> Are you asking if I agree with Obama?


Do you see the word "Obama" anywhere in my post?


----------



## Billo_Really

GoneBezerk said:


> Admit it, you address yourself as "Idiot" in the mirror.


I've never done that.  I've thought it from time to time.  But never in front of a mirror.


----------



## Mac1958

.

If there are people who actually, literally hate others simply because of their political opinions, I'd have more questions about the hat*ers* than the hat*ees.*

.


----------



## Billo_Really

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> If there are people who actually, literally hate others simply because of their political opinions, I'd have more questions about the hat*ers* than the hat*ees.*
> 
> .


And a lot of people hate others, because that's all the know.  

They find comfort in what's familiar.


----------



## Unkotare

Saigon said:


> Freewill -
> 
> Are you really giving the Bush adminstration a pass for eight years of failed economic policies?



The economy was doing quite well for most of President Bush's terms in office.


----------



## Billo_Really

Unkotare said:


> The economy was doing quite well for most of President Bush's terms in office.


It was better during the Clinton years.


----------



## Unkotare

Fordsflylow said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets not forget the $12 billion in CASH that was flown to Iraq and came up missing?  I wonder how exactly enough cash to fill 10's of semi's actually comes up missing in haliburton-land....er....cheneyland....er....Iraq>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there is A LOT of waste in whatever the government does.  That is the conservative point of view, get the government waste out of society and allow free enterprise to grow.  But you example is not an example of policy it is a talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd have a point if this gov was in fact the gov of the PEOPLE, not the MINORITY 1% as it now and has been since trickle-down bs economics began.  Look at the big picture and put some real thought into it for a change
> 
> To get the waste out of gov would be to get the MINORITY 1% out of running what was started as We The People's gov.
Click to expand...




Emo-clown


----------



## Unkotare

loinboy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economy was doing quite well for most of President Bush's terms in office.
> 
> 
> 
> It was better during the Clinton years.
Click to expand...


At certain points.


----------



## GoneBezerk

You HATE the CIA and US military for removing Saddam from power and killing terrorists there.

Also, you hate those that supported the war in Iraq.

See how this works, asswipe.



loinboy said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> If there are people who actually, literally hate others simply because of their political opinions, I'd have more questions about the hat*ers* than the hat*ees.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> And a lot of people hate others, because that's all the know.
> 
> They find comfort in what's familiar.
Click to expand...


----------



## GoneBezerk

The mental midgets think 8.4% unemployement is better than 5.3%.



Unkotare said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill -
> 
> Are you really giving the Bush adminstration a pass for eight years of failed economic policies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The economy was doing quite well for most of President Bush's terms in office.
Click to expand...


----------



## Billo_Really

GoneBezerk said:


> You HATE the CIA and US military for removing Saddam from power and killing terrorists there.
> 
> Also, you hate those that supported the war in Iraq.
> 
> See how this works, asswipe.


You deciding for yourself what I hate, instead of asking me what I hate, doesn't work at all.  Unless you're a fuckin' pussy who doesn't have the balls to discuss the issue like a rational adult.


----------



## Billo_Really

Unkotare said:


> At certain points.


And just for the record, I've got a lot of issues with "Slick Willie".

He's the one who signed Gramm-Bliley into law.


----------



## Mac1958

GoneBezerk said:


> You HATE the CIA and US military for removing Saddam from power and killing terrorists there.
> 
> Also, you hate those that supported the war in Iraq.
> 
> See how this works, asswipe.




Well, no.

Anyone who equates disagreement, even passionate disagreement, with hatred is operating on a primitive intellectual level.

.


----------



## GoneBezerk

Oh ok, asswipe...you've confused yourself. 

Again, you didn't do shit in regards to Iraq unlike me......but you are a bona fide "American."  More like a limp-dick piece of shit hiding behind a keyboard.



loinboy said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You HATE the CIA and US military for removing Saddam from power and killing terrorists there.
> 
> Also, you hate those that supported the war in Iraq.
> 
> See how this works, asswipe.
> 
> 
> 
> You deciding for yourself what I hate, instead of asking me what I hate, doesn't work at all.  Unless you're a fuckin' pussy who doesn't have the balls to discuss the issue like a rational adult.
Click to expand...


----------



## GoneBezerk

You "support the troops" by protesting them....both you and loinBOY are idiots and a waste of oxygen.



Mac1958 said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You HATE the CIA and US military for removing Saddam from power and killing terrorists there.
> 
> Also, you hate those that supported the war in Iraq.
> 
> See how this works, asswipe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no.
> 
> Anyone who equates disagreement, even passionate disagreement, with hatred is operating on a primitive intellectual level.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## Mac1958

GoneBezerk said:


> You "support the troops" by protesting them....both you and loinBOY are idiots and a waste of oxygen.
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You HATE the CIA and US military for removing Saddam from power and killing terrorists there.
> 
> Also, you hate those that supported the war in Iraq.
> 
> See how this works, asswipe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no.
> 
> Anyone who equates disagreement, even passionate disagreement, with hatred is operating on a primitive intellectual level.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Yet another vivid example of my point.

.


----------



## Billo_Really

GoneBezerk said:


> Oh ok, asswipe...you've confused yourself.
> 
> Again, you didn't do shit in regards to Iraq unlike me......but you are a bona fide "American."  More like a limp-dick piece of shit hiding behind a keyboard.


There was nothing to do with Iraq, because there was nothing going on in Iraq.  

And if you want to finish this conversation face-to-face, I"m at the 49ner Tavern in Long Beach, Ca every Friday between 4:30-5:30PM for happy hour.

I don't hide from anything, nor do I run from anyone.  You get in my face, you're not going to see me backing up.


----------



## Billo_Really

GoneBezerk said:


> You "support the troops" by protesting them....both you and loinBOY are idiots and a waste of oxygen.


I support the troops by not being so cavalier about putting them in harms way.

Something you apparently choose to dismiss.


----------



## Mac1958

loinboy said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You "support the troops" by protesting them....both you and loinBOY are idiots and a waste of oxygen.
> 
> 
> 
> I support the troops by not being so cavalier about putting them in harms way.
> 
> Something you apparently choose to dismiss.
Click to expand...



But he's a BIG supporter of the body bag industry.

.


----------



## Billo_Really

Mac1958 said:


> But he's a BIG supporter of the body bag industry.
> 
> .


One of the most under-reported issues of the year, is the 22% increase in soldier suicides.


----------



## Shelzin

loinboy said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> remember this next time you are in a thread with Truthmatters,Dean,Chris,Franco and Dudley.......especially Dean and Chris....
> 
> 
> 
> I never politicize logical deductive reasoning.  Whenever I see flawed logic in someone's post, I'll say something about it.  And I don't care if its a liberal post or a conservative post.  There's no place for irrational reasoning when we are discussing politics.  And if someone comes back and explains their logic in more detail and it becomes apparent there was something I didn't take into consideration, I got no problem admitting I'm wrong.
> 
> What really pisses my gord, are these dumbshits who offer no evidence   to backup their claim and just act like they've proved their point.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh... Welcome to the boards.


----------



## Mac1958

loinboy said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But he's a BIG supporter of the body bag industry.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most under-reported issues of the year, is the 22% increase in soldier suicides.
Click to expand...



Yes, then multiply that by all the family members who are affected and suffering too.

.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shelzin said:


> Ahhhh... Welcome to the boards.


Is that like The Hills or The OC?


----------



## thanatos144

loinboy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economy was doing quite well for most of President Bush's terms in office.
> 
> 
> 
> It was better during the Clinton years.
Click to expand...


Yep you can  thank a more conservative congress for that. Wasn't newt great?


----------



## Unkotare

loinboy said:


> And if you want to finish this conversation face-to-face, I"m at the 49ner Tavern in Long Beach, Ca every Friday between 4:30-5:30PM for happy hour.
> 
> I don't hide from anything, nor do I run from anyone.  You get in my face, you're not going to see me backing up.




LOL. Drunk already, tough guy?


----------



## Shelzin

loinboy said:


> Shelzin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh... Welcome to the boards.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that like The Hills or The OC?
Click to expand...

I don't understand the reference.


----------



## Shelzin

Unkotare said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you want to finish this conversation face-to-face, I"m at the 49ner Tavern in Long Beach, Ca every Friday between 4:30-5:30PM for happy hour.
> 
> I don't hide from anything, nor do I run from anyone.  You get in my face, you're not going to see me backing up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Drunk already, tough guy?
Click to expand...

If you are only going to do one liners can you at least do something with some entertainment value if it doesn't have any real meaning?


----------



## Sactowndog

kaz said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's examine the big issues:
> 
> Energy ->  Government endlessly impedes companies from drilling off our shores, in Alaska, and on Federal land, government blocks new Nuclear plants, government restricts horizontal fracking, government blocks coal plants including clean burning coal, government blocks building new oil refineries, government has created roughly 30 local gas blends and government wastes billions on inefficient technologies...
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me take these one at a time....
> 
> 1) In terms of negative government mandates Democrats aren't alone.  The California blend was mandated by a Republican Congress largely at the behest of Archer Daniels Midland.  Would the drilling projects you mentioned be viable without the tax credits given to oil and gas?  All types of energy receive government assistance today.  If you want the government out of energy why just mention the ones you don't like.  Also it is common for new technologies to need a push to generate critical mass for distribution.  You should be more concerned with old technologies sucking at the government teat.
> 
> 2) The government should fund basic research in paradigm shifting techologies.  Much of the technology we have today from composites to the Internet comes from government funding.
> 
> 3) Government has always played a role in infrastructure.  The national highway system was government funded and laid the ground work for years of economic expansion.  Upgrading our infrastructure to more efficiently generate and distribute electricity is a valid role of government.
> 
> 4) The tragedy of the commons is real.  It is a valid purpose of government to balance protecting the environment with economic matters.  Having grown up in the smog of LA and having seen China, I don't think anyone wants to eliminate that balance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you stated we have price inefficiencies, I gave you a bunch of real reasons for that, and your argument is a few weak rationalizations for little pieces of them?  And that is your solution to fixing energy prices?
> 
> Can't argue with that...
Click to expand...


Where do you read price fixing???  I am not nor did I imply I was for that.  

What I am for is reducing production subsidies for all types of energy.  This includes oil.  

I am for investing in our electrical distribution system because by going electrical it abstracts us from any one type of energy source and enhances competition.  We also need to make our distribution more efficient and less susceptible to loss.  

I am for investing in research around battery technology as a fundamental role in abstracting our energy needs.  

Lastly I would fund basic research renewable sources and especially solar power because ultimately it is the most efficient energy source at it has limited extraction costs, is fully renewable and can be generated where it is used in many parts of the country.  The country that leads in this race will have a significant competitive and strategic advantage.  We can't lose to China here.

That would be what I support not price fixing.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shelzin said:


> I don't understand the reference.


Neither do I. 

I'm drunk!


----------



## Billo_Really

Unkotare said:


> LOL. Drunk already, tough guy?


I'm not drunk!


----------



## Shelzin

loinboy said:


> Shelzin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the reference.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do I.
> 
> I'm drunk!
Click to expand...

Gotta be careful... People might start thinking you are my alt.  Or... Sock.. Whatever they call it in here.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shelzin said:


> Gotta be careful... People might start thinking you are my alt.  Or... Sock.. Whatever they call it in here.


I'm just fuckin' with *Unkotare*.


----------



## Sactowndog

kaz said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's examine the big issues:
> 
> Medical ->  government creates endless mandates on insurance carriers like paying for things like sex change operations and hair transplants, government created a system of endless frivolous lawsuits so a doctor starting out can have a six figure insurance policy they have to cover, government blocks selling policies across State lines, government gives employers tax breaks but not individual policies so people can't manage their own healthcare plans, government blocks people from taking their coverage with them if they leave their job.  Government abets foreign countries stealing American pharmaceuticals without paying for the R&D that was used to develop them so American consumers pay higher prices...
> 
> So your read of the situation is the problem is not enough government.  Gotcha...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You leave out the most important mandate which is government mandates that hospitals treat the uninsured who enter their emergency room.
> 
> The big problem with healthcare is we want it to be free market but we don't accept what that means.  A demand curve requires people drop out of the market as the cost rises.  Applied to healthcare that means as the cost rises at each point the decision is made to let the entity die rather than pay the price.  These decisions occur everyday in animal health but never occur in human health care.  Without it you can't have a demand curve and without a demand curve you can't have a true market based system.
> 
> That means you have to have a pseudo market solution that effectively accounts for the fact that we are unwilling to let people exit the market and the means government has to be involved to some extent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And therefore government can fix it?  Hmm...
Click to expand...


If we are going to dictate that we don't want people to drop out of the market then yes government has to be involved.  For the record my approach would be similiar to Ryan's approach.  

I would use vouchers but not just for the elderly but for everyone.  The vouchers would be based on need.   

I would let states set a baseline plan for their state but I would let insurers offer policies across state lines so if someone wanted to offer a health plan targeted at 25 year old African males they could do so.  People could chose the plan the desired and if they negligantly failed to chose a plan they would be enrolled in the state baseline plan.  (My desired approach would be if they were negligent let them die in the street but I realize that might be a little harsh.)


----------



## westwall

Fordsflylow said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not absolving anyone who was involved from blame.  So are you giving Obama and the democrats after 3 1/2 years of doing exactly what they wanted with control of the Senate and WH and 3 years before that control of Congress NO blame?
> 
> Now, if you want to have a discussion on what caused the stock market crash which caused or was the result of the housing bubble burst then name the BUSH policy that you think caused the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted, his tax cuts for the rich and starting two unecessary wars at a cost of $12 billion a month.
> 
> I just gave you 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets not forget the $12 billion in CASH that was flown to Iraq and came up missing?  I wonder how exactly enough cash to fill 10's of semi's actually comes up missing in haliburton-land....er....cheneyland....er....Iraq>
Click to expand...






Yep, graft and corruption for sure.  I wonder how much of Obama's 800 billion stimulous is traceable?


----------



## Freewill

loinboy said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> If there are people who actually, literally hate others simply because of their political opinions, I'd have more questions about the hat*ers* than the hat*ees.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> And a lot of people hate others, because that's all the know.
> 
> They find comfort in what's familiar.
Click to expand...


I have found that most times when people make blanket statements about what others think it is because that is what they think.


----------



## Freewill

loinboy said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont hate liberals.....None of you are liberals you are all progressives and I dont hate them I just fight against them cause I love my country.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support:
> 
> the war in Iraq
> the Patriot Act
> indefinate detention
> Because if you do, you don't love this country.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm, who made you the great decider of such things?


----------



## Freewill

francoHFW said:


> Only tinfoil total dupes believe Obama is communist. Cold War dinosaur morons. The rest of the world sees a pragmatic centrist.



While I would say more of a socialist then communist do you have one link to back up what the rest of the world thinks?  Now I don't know what their MSM feeds them but by what I see Obama is not a pragmatist nor a centrist, only would he be in liberal fantasy land.


----------



## Freewill

loinboy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economy was doing quite well for most of President Bush's terms in office.
> 
> 
> 
> It was better during the Clinton years.
Click to expand...


Actually it depends on how you measure the economy.  Clinton had a growing economy given to him by Ronald Reagan.  Bush on the other hand had a recession, Y2k windown and the dot.com crash handed to him from Clinton.  And of course 9/11 came along as a sever body blow, but we recovered fairly quickly unlike what Obama has done with his recession.


----------



## Freewill

loinboy said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill -
> 
> Are you really giving the Bush adminstration a pass for eight years of failed economic policies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not absolving anyone who was involved from blame.  So are you giving Obama and the democrats after 3 1/2 years of doing exactly what they wanted with control of the Senate and WH and 3 years before that control of Congress NO blame?
> 
> Now, if you want to have a discussion on what caused the stock market crash which caused or was the result of the housing bubble burst then name the BUSH policy that you think caused the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted, his tax cuts for the rich and starting two unecessary wars at a cost of $12 billion a month.
> 
> I just gave you 3.
Click to expand...


How did he do that, is really what I meant.  What law or executive order or whatever caused that to happen?


----------



## Shelzin

loinboy said:


> Shelzin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta be careful... People might start thinking you are my alt.  Or... Sock.. Whatever they call it in here.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just fuckin' with *Unkotare*.
Click to expand...

I know... I'm telling you they are going to think you are my alt.  That's exactly something I would say or do.

I look forward to you saying something I disagree with to be honest with you.   I like people who actually address what is said, and gives a full out no PC bullshit answer.  Honesty and logic.  Love that.  Even if we disagree.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Sactowndog said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to look at the broad/big picture.  You know, like the facts that a relative few rich fucking assholes are trying to BUY this election and are funding only one side - the con side.  Which makes it easy to assume that they expect something in return for their investments.  What do you think that might be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what about the rich fucking assholes who fund only the Liberal side?....dont you think they want something in return?......what do you think it might be?.....the trouble with many people here is they think the real rich Democrats are different than the real rich Conservatives.....when push comes to shove...see who they side with....the people or themselves.....rich people will side with other rich people because they have something in common.....its called Money.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think this is true at all as I believe most people want what's best for the country.  But I will say a friend of mine who is a business broker and is worth millions has a different opinion.  While he and I are aligned he believes much of the wall street money is only interested in enriching themselves and lowering or eliminating their taxes regardless of the effect on the country.
Click to expand...

*
I don't think this is true at all as I believe most people want what's best for the country*

most people are not the real Wealthy.....Wealthy people want whats best for their money and a hell of a lot of people will back the Politician who is for THEIR JOB existing as compared to the one who wants it ended....regardless of what it still existing means.........


----------



## Londoner

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.



See Louis Althusser's "Ideological State Apparatus"

In capitalist societies money controls everything including opinion > media. 

The wealthy provide incentives to people who smear liberalism. 

This is how concentrated wealth is sustained.


----------



## Harry Dresden

HUGGY said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted, his tax cuts for the rich and *starting two unecessary wars *at a cost of $12 billion a month.
> 
> I just gave you 3.
> 
> 
> 
> *were you part of the 10% of the Country who was against Bush attacking Afghanistan*?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't the stated mission.  Bush said he would go to the gates of hell or some such nonsense to get those that committed 9/11.  He lied about that too as he seemed to purposely let Ossama escape in Tora Bora.
> 
> If Bush had stated the truth of what he wanted to do which was get footprints in Afgahnistan so he could invade Iraq, Ossama be damned, he would have never had support.   Bush and Cheney and Rice and Powell lied and moved the goal posts constantly with a heavy dose of fear mongering and lying bullshit to get us where we are today in those countries.
> 
> Bush could have easily sent in special ops with orders to kill Bin Ladin and got it over with in a couple of weeks.
> 
> He did not.  He wasted over a trillion dollars ..got twice as many Americans killed as died on 9/11...was responsible for probably a million Afgans and Iraqis killed and maimed..several million displaced.
> 
> Don't mistake kindness for letting Bush off the hook for his blundering, plundering and murder for weakness or amnesia.  If right was right Bush should be in prison.  It's way too soon for the lying republicans to rewrite the history of Bush's crimes.  Better leave it alone.  The statute of limitations on treason, war profiteering and murder will never expire.
Click to expand...


Huggy the guy said STARTING 2 unnecessary Wars....not how the War progressed and what happened afterwards......Bush had a good 90% of the Country behind him after 9/11 to go into Afghanistan.....that meant 10% were not behind him to go in.....none of us knew what was going to transpire those first weeks and how it fucked up......if he would have not used the word STARTING i would have ignored his statement.....


----------



## Londoner

For example...

Let's say that Blue Cross and Cigna agree not to compete in certain regions, so each can maintain high premiums and deliver high payouts to investors. And let's say that this lack of competition leads to a massive inflation of health costs. Lets say that Cox and Charter do the same thing with cable television and internet. Let's say that most of the major sectors in the USA are filled with these anti-trust agreements where companies - because of their lobbying efforts - form government protected monopolies. 

Let's say a Liberal president discovers this problem and wants to break-up the health care monopolies by unwinding the poisonous consequences of lobbying. Meaning: let's say he wants to force these health insurance companies to compete. (Otherwise these monopolies will keep raising prices and decreasing service, which is the EXACT opposite of what Reaganomics promised) 

Since "The Ideological State Apparatus" is owned partly by the Health Insurance monopolies, they pour money into think tanks, publishing groups, radio and television in order to convince the public that any attempt to break up their monopoly is socialism.

The public, lacking a formal education in political science and economics, buys it. 

The public believes the problem is "government" rather than the private-sector-wealth that owns government. 

Why do they believe this?

Because the wealthy own the Ideological State Apparatus and they pay for opinions.


----------



## Unkotare

Shelzin said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you want to finish this conversation face-to-face, I"m at the 49ner Tavern in Long Beach, Ca every Friday between 4:30-5:30PM for happy hour.
> 
> I don't hide from anything, nor do I run from anyone.  You get in my face, you're not going to see me backing up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Drunk already, tough guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are only going to do one liners can you at least do something with some entertainment value if it doesn't have any real meaning?
Click to expand...


Oh yeah? Well just you come down to Harry's Has Been Bar on Long Beach between 4:57 and 5:03PM, find the third stool from the end, and try saying that to my face! Why, I oughtta...


----------



## Unkotare

loinboy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Drunk already, tough guy?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not drunk!
Click to expand...




Don't throw away your last excuse so easily.


----------



## Shelzin

Unkotare said:


> Shelzin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Drunk already, tough guy?
> 
> 
> 
> If you are only going to do one liners can you at least do something with some entertainment value if it doesn't have any real meaning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah? Well just you come down to Harry's Has Been Bar on Long Beach between 4:57 and 5:03PM, find the third stool from the end, and try saying that to my face! Why, I oughtta...
Click to expand...

*laughs*

That's better... Thank you..  lol


----------



## Billo_Really

Unkotare said:


> Oh yeah? Well just you come down to Harry's Has Been Bar on Long Beach between 4:57 and 5:03PM, find the third stool from the end, and try saying that to my face! Why, I oughtta...


Actually, Harry's is in Sunset Beach right across the street from Captain Jacks.


----------



## Billo_Really

Unkotare said:


> Don't throw away your last excuse so easily.


Apparently, you didn't see the one before it.

Post #482, to be exact.


----------



## Unkotare

loinboy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah? Well just you come down to Harry's Has Been Bar on Long Beach between 4:57 and 5:03PM, find the third stool from the end, and try saying that to my face! Why, I oughtta...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Harry's is in Sunset Beach right across the street from Captain Jacks.
Click to expand...



I really don't care what gutter they throw you in at night.


----------



## Harry Dresden

GoneBezerk said:


> The mental midgets think 8.4% unemployement is better than 5.3%.
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill -
> 
> Are you really giving the Bush adminstration a pass for eight years of failed economic policies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The economy was doing quite well for most of President Bush's terms in office.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


its better than the 10.8% were i am at.....


----------



## Billo_Really

Unkotare said:


> I really don't care what gutter they throw you in at night.


Captain Jacks is far from a gutter.  

The last time I went there, dinner for 2 cost me $174.


----------



## Unkotare

loinboy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't care what gutter they throw you in at night.
> 
> 
> 
> Captain Jacks is far from a gutter.
> 
> The last time I went there, dinner for 2 cost me $174.
Click to expand...




Got mugged climbing out of the dumpster? That's a shame, and on gub'ment check day too!


----------



## Shelzin

Unkotare said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't care what gutter they throw you in at night.
> 
> 
> 
> Captain Jacks is far from a gutter.
> 
> The last time I went there, dinner for 2 cost me $174.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got mugged climbing out of the dumpster? That's a shame, and on gub'ment check day too!
Click to expand...

Bah... The last one was unexpected...  You actually tied it into the conversation and did it with a little flair of using words back against the guy...  Now it's back to being stupid again.  My god don't be predictable about it.


----------



## Billo_Really

Unkotare said:


> Got mugged climbing out of the dumpster? That's a shame, and on gub'ment check day too!


I haven't received my check yet.  Since they won't talk to anyone on the phone, I gotta go down there on Monday and find out what's going on.  Rents due in a week and I don't want to go out and do some last minute pole dancing just to keep my landlord at bay.


----------



## Shelzin

Only slightly better than Unkotare.   Pole dancing always gets a very slight plus.


----------



## Immanuel

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. *And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.*
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Are you frigging blind? Or maybe you don't read people like TDM, rdean, chris, luddley.nuddite etc. etc. etc.

BTW: its not liberals that I don't like, it is arrogant people and so many (not all or most) liberals are just plain arrogant thinking they know what is better for everyone else and yes, there are plenty of arrogant conservatives as well.

Immie


----------



## Unkotare

Shelzin said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Captain Jacks is far from a gutter.
> 
> The last time I went there, dinner for 2 cost me $174.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got mugged climbing out of the dumpster? That's a shame, and on gub'ment check day too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bah... The last one was unexpected...  You actually tied it into the conversation and did it with a little flair of using words back against the guy...  Now it's back to being stupid again.  My god don't be predictable about it.
Click to expand...




You're just being picky. The contrast between expensive dining and dumpster diving? Gold! Pure gold! The mugging bit was necessary to address the $174. And it all ties into the 'pathetic drunk at a bar issuing threats' theme that he himself established. All tied nicely together, if I do say so. And it's slightly hurtful without being too mean-spirited. You need to sharpen up your analysis.


----------



## Billo_Really

Immanuel said:


> Are you frigging blind? Or maybe you don't read people like TDM, rdean, chris, luddley.nuddite etc. etc. etc.
> 
> BTW: its not liberals that I don't like, it is arrogant people and so many (not all or most) liberals are just plain arrogant thinking they know what is better for everyone else and yes, there are plenty of arrogant conservatives as well.
> 
> Immie


I'm not arrogant!

_*I'm a kind, sensitive person, who cares about the feelings of others, you asshole!*_


----------



## Billo_Really

Unkotare said:


> You're just being picky. The contrast between expensive dining and dumpster diving? Gold! Pure gold! The mugging bit was necessary to address the $174. And it all ties into the 'pathetic drunk at a bar issuing threats' theme that he himself established. All tied nicely together, if I do say so. And it's slightly hurtful without being too mean-spirited. You need to sharpen up your analysis.


I have not threatened anyone.

I never said what would happen if we met face-to-face.


----------



## Immanuel

loinboy said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you frigging blind? Or maybe you don't read people like TDM, rdean, chris, luddley.nuddite etc. etc. etc.
> 
> BTW: its not liberals that I don't like, it is arrogant people and so many (not all or most) liberals are just plain arrogant thinking they know what is better for everyone else and yes, there are plenty of arrogant conservatives as well.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not arrogant!
> 
> _*I'm a kind, sensitive person, who cares about the feelings of others, you asshole!*_
Click to expand...


Did I include your name in there?  Did I call you arrogant?  Have I ever said I didn't like you?  Nope... asshole! 

Immie


----------



## Unkotare

loinboy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just being picky. The contrast between expensive dining and dumpster diving? Gold! Pure gold! The mugging bit was necessary to address the $174. And it all ties into the 'pathetic drunk at a bar issuing threats' theme that he himself established. All tied nicely together, if I do say so. And it's slightly hurtful without being too mean-spirited. You need to sharpen up your analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> I have not threatened anyone.
> 
> I never said what would happen if we met face-to-face.
Click to expand...




I would imagine that just being forced to stand within the sphere of your funk after yet another Happy Hour constitutes a threat to hygiene and aesthetic well-being.


----------



## Shelzin

Unkotare said:


> Shelzin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got mugged climbing out of the dumpster? That's a shame, and on gub'ment check day too!
> 
> 
> 
> Bah... The last one was unexpected...  You actually tied it into the conversation and did it with a little flair of using words back against the guy...  Now it's back to being stupid again.  My god don't be predictable about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just being picky. The contrast between expensive dining and dumpster diving? Gold! Pure gold! The mugging bit was necessary to address the $174. And it all ties into the 'pathetic drunk at a bar issuing threats' theme that he himself established. All tied nicely together, if I do say so.
Click to expand...

But I saw that coming...   You know... Just wasn't unexpected.  I don't know... it's like an ongoing joke gone on two long rather than a joke you tell... And then you fit it in two or three times during the show... You know?



> And it's slightly hurtful without being too mean-spirited. You need to sharpen up your analysis.


How was the above?


----------



## Unkotare

It sounds like you're looking for absurdism, but that gets boring very quickly.


----------



## Billo_Really

Unkotare said:


> I would imagine that just being forced to stand within the sphere of your funk after yet another Happy Hour constitutes a threat to hygiene and aesthetic well-being.


Well, there's always that possibility.


----------



## Billo_Really

Immanuel said:


> Did I include your name in there?  Did I call you arrogant?  Have I ever said I didn't like you?  Nope... asshole!
> 
> Immie


That was harsh!

I think we can certainly communicate on a higher plane than that?


----------



## dnsmith35

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


I think you will find the answer if you search your soul (assuming you believe you have one).Moderates and conservatives (leaving out Right Wing Nuts who are crazy) don't like liberals because the talk the talk and don't walk the walk. Of all of the liberals I have read here their altruism stops at the border. There biggest means of dealing with an issue is to throw money at it without giving a thought to, "will it work?" And when it doesn't work their answer is, "throw some more money at it." Liberals support unions which have sucked some American Corporations dry, then complain because the corporation moves off shore because of high costs. Liberals believe that big government is the answer to everything, that the 10th amendment of the constitution means nothing and the 2nd Amendment is wrong, and that the 1st amendment means "freedom from religion."That is just for starters but I'm getting tired. Maybe later.

Speaking of Saigon, do you remember Cong Ly Street? Troung Minh Ghyn? (sp) I spent many a Sunday dinner at the Hasty Tasty Indian Restaurant on Cong Ly about half way from Tan Son Nhut and the river.


----------



## Shelzin

Unkotare said:


> It sounds like you're looking for absurdism, but that gets boring very quickly.


No man... I'm looking for some wit.  But I admit... This conversation is getting boring too... So...  I said my piece.


----------



## blimpo

Truthseeker420 said:


> I don't want to get into detail because then I would be accused of being hateful toward cons. But while liberals view the world with shades of gray, conservatives view the world as black vs white,us vs them,good vs evil.




That pretty much covers it. I wish the world was that simple.

It sure would make things easier.


----------



## Unkotare

blimpo said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to get into detail because then I would be accused of being hateful toward cons. But while liberals view the world with shades of gray, conservatives view the world as black vs white,us vs them,good vs evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That pretty much covers it. I wish the world was that simple.
> 
> It sure would make things easier.
Click to expand...




The world is simple to simpletons like Truthavoider there. It's not the real world, but...


----------



## Fordsflylow

Harry Dresden said:


> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> You could have done better than that avoiding answering my question, AND asking one instead. *
> 
> i did think i needed to answer your question if i agree with you
> 
> * Seeing as you're so good at not answering questions*
> 
> since your new here and dont know anything about anyone ill let that go by....
> *
> name a "rich fucking asshole" who funds only the left?*
> Soros
> 
> * I'd bet my bottom dollar if he/she funds the left he/she is not an asshole, *
> 
> probably because you agree with their Politics....duh....
> 
> *fucking assholes who do fund only the right AND expect a great deal in return.*
> 
> and if you dont think those who fund the Left dont want anything in return...then they have done their job on you.....
> *
> The wealthy who fund the left know they are not going to get anything in return which is why corporate money tends to be lopsided toward the right/wrong side.  Those who fund the left imo show a concern for those who's voice is drowned out by the money AND try and counter it with money.*
> 
> and you fell for this?.....are you that stupid?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have is one!?!  Wow that ONE guy ought to be able to outspend any and all of those rich fucking con assholes.  Nice try but no cigar!
> 
> Alright smart guy, what makes Soros an asshole?
> What do you think Soros will get in return for his investment?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Fordsflylow

Harry Dresden said:


> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the businesses and employees that get the 400mil in business revenue and the taxes they pay...yes indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to look at the broad/big picture.  You know, like the facts that a relative few rich fucking assholes are trying to BUY this election and are funding only one side - the con side.  Which makes it easy to assume that they expect something in return for their investments.  What do you think that might be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what about the rich fucking assholes who fund only the Liberal side?....dont you think they want something in return?......what do you think it might be?.....the trouble with many people here is they think the real rich Democrats are different than the real rich Conservatives.....when push comes to shove...see who they side with....the people or themselves.....rich people will side with other rich people because they have something in common.....its called Money.....
Click to expand...


I agree with the "money" portion and that's all.  I see, hear, read of no evidence that rich con vs rich libs are similar except in the $ category and which side they support.

As well, I've yet to see, read, hear and/or evidence on exactly how the con's in general will go to bat for the working joe/jane.  If you're trying to sell that bs, you best try with someone else cause I aint buying your knee deep bs.


----------



## Fordsflylow

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sad, but true
> 
> The days when you could graduate HS and get a good union job that would enable you to support a wife and four kids are long gone
> 
> Now it takes two salaries, College degrees and a lot of luck to support two kids.
> 
> All thanks to years of Conservative policies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has it ever occurred to you problem is that you're too lazy?
> 
> This is such a load of crap.  Everything I do all day to build my businesses anyone could do.  No one cares what color, sex, religion or age I am and they don't give a crap about the degrees that cover my wall.  It's all about working hard, building a staff, serving my customers and doing deals.
Click to expand...


If the rich and powerful are leading by example, they are leading all you lemmings who buy into their bs off a cliff, and are ultimately doing a piss poor job at leading by example.  All while stating all you poor sob's need to do is work harder and smarter, while we try harder to dumb you down and accept our lame agenda, and you too can make it up to our level.  Yah, right!

How is this SUPPOSED "capitalism" different from a grand pyramid scheme?


----------



## Mac1958

.

Blaming someone else for one's failures is much easier than blaming oneself.  

.


----------



## HomeInspect

Personally, I don't hate Liberals, or anyone else for that matter.  I find Liberals for the most part very naive, to the point of being clueless in many cases. They base their opinions on emotion and feeling, over reality. They also like to put words in your mouth and make false assumptions.


----------



## Fordsflylow

zeke said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could have done better than that avoiding answering my question, AND asking one instead.  What will the rich fucking asshole get in return for supporting a con with oodles of money?  Seeing as you're so good at not answering questions I'll try again but a different question; name a "rich fucking asshole" who funds only the left?  I'd bet my bottom dollar if he/she funds the left he/she is not an asshole, as are the numerous rich fucking assholes who do fund only the right AND expect a great deal in return.
> 
> The wealthy who fund the left know they are not going to get anything in return which is why corporate money tends to be lopsided toward the right/wrong side.  Those who fund the left imo show a concern for those who's voice is drowned out by the money AND try and counter it with money.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> You could have done better than that avoiding answering my question, AND asking one instead. *
> 
> i did think i needed to answer your question if i agree with you
> 
> * Seeing as you're so good at not answering questions*
> 
> since your new here and dont know anything about anyone ill let that go by....
> *
> name a "rich fucking asshole" who funds only the left?*
> Soros
> 
> * I'd bet my bottom dollar if he/she funds the left he/she is not an asshole, *
> 
> probably because you agree with their Politics....duh....
> 
> *fucking assholes who do fund only the right AND expect a great deal in return.*
> 
> and if you dont think those who fund the Left dont want anything in return...then they have done their job on you.....
> *
> The wealthy who fund the left know they are not going to get anything in return which is why corporate money tends to be lopsided toward the right/wrong side.  Those who fund the left imo show a concern for those who's voice is drowned out by the money AND try and counter it with money.*
> 
> and you fell for this?.....are you that stupid?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, Soros wants something done to benefit him in exchange for all the millions he has given. Now what is it George wants? I don't know, but he wants something. Access maybe?
> A more level playing field maybe. He is opposed to what the ultra rich right wingers want and is willing to put his money up to fight whatever.
> 
> Now you. What do the Koch brothers want? Addleson? Other rich mega donors?
> 
> Maybe it is fighting fire with fire.
> 
> But no one who is worth billions willingly spends hundreds of millions to accomplish something and not expect to get a payback. They didn't get to the top 1% by being stupid.
Click to expand...


I can easily tell you and anyone who has an open mind that the Koch boyz want to buy power to go with their billions they were GIVEN.  They want deregulation just like any mega-oil company.

They also want to keep more of the money they were GIVEN through lower taxes while they fuck the poor and working classes AGAIN.

They want cheap labor which is why they are funding to get rid of collective bargaining and doing everything possible to keep the Mexican border open, WHILE THEY REAP RECORD PROFITS - UNABATED - SO THEY CAN BUY EVERY CON FOR EVERY ELECTION like they are right now.

If they have it so bad, where'd they come up with $400,000,000.00 for THEIR super pac's?


----------



## Fordsflylow

loinboy said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> remember this next time you are in a thread with Truthmatters,Dean,Chris,Franco and Dudley.......especially Dean and Chris....
> 
> 
> 
> I never politicize logical deductive reasoning.  Whenever I see flawed logic in someone's post, I'll say something about it.  And I don't care if its a liberal post or a conservative post.  There's no place for irrational reasoning when we are discussing politics.  And if someone comes back and explains their logic in more detail and it becomes apparent there was something I didn't take into consideration, I got no problem admitting I'm wrong.
> 
> What really pisses my gord, are these dumbshits who offer no evidence   to backup their claim and just act like they've proved their point.
Click to expand...


Couldn't have stated it better myself.  Well done and very similar to how I approach politics, and life in general.  Life is too fucking short for the bs.  Even though I'm not a Missourian I do adopt there "show me" motto.

History has taught many of us important lessons.  "One" of the problems as I see it is many con lovers fail to even consider any lessons OR giving it any real thought.

I too have admitted being wrong whenever I am wrong, but it will have to be proven. and is not a gimmee.


----------



## Fordsflylow

Bfgrn said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill -
> 
> Are you really giving the Bush adminstration a pass for eight years of failed economic policies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not absolving anyone who was involved from blame.  So are you giving Obama and the democrats after 3 1/2 years of doing exactly what they wanted with control of the Senate and WH and 3 years before that control of Congress NO blame?
> 
> Now, if you want to have a discussion on what caused the stock market crash which caused or was the result of the housing bubble burst then name the BUSH policy that you think caused the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see this is the problem with today's right wing Fox News brainwashed parrots. We don't argue over philosophy, we argue over facts vs. the propaganda LIES the right wing parrots chirp.
> 
> I'd be happy to school you on what caused the stock market crash and the housing bubble burst, but it will be very painful for you to face. I will tell you right now what DIDN'T cause it...it was NOT Fannie, it was NOT Freddie, it was NOT selling homes to lower income Americans and it was NOT government regulations. It was cause by a LACK of government regulation of the private sector.
> 
> But if you insist on blaming government...START HERE
> 
> Bush's 'ownership society'
> 
> "America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it soundsa government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgagesderivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.
> 
> As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.
> 
> End of the Ownership Society
Click to expand...


Perfect and truthful on all points!!


----------



## Fordsflylow

loinboy said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But he's a BIG supporter of the body bag industry.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most under-reported issues of the year, is the 22% increase in soldier suicides.
Click to expand...


Cause the poor are fighting this war.


----------



## Fordsflylow

Sactowndog said:


> I would use vouchers but not just for the elderly but for everyone.  The vouchers would be based on need.



You mean coupons don't you?  The word "vouchers" seems so.......misleading.   How do you think that will go over with someone (millions) on a fixed income?


----------



## Fordsflylow

westwall said:


> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing the financial industry to do whatever they wanted, his tax cuts for the rich and starting two unecessary wars at a cost of $12 billion a month.
> 
> I just gave you 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets not forget the $12 billion in CASH that was flown to Iraq and came up missing?  I wonder how exactly enough cash to fill 10's of semi's actually comes up missing in haliburton-land....er....cheneyland....er....Iraq>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, graft and corruption for sure.  I wonder how much of Obama's 800 billion stimulous is traceable?
Click to expand...


The stimulous was $1.2 trillion and nearly half was in the form of tax cuts, of which I still enjoy.  You sure you know the difference between TARP and Stim AND who signed which?


----------



## Fordsflylow

Londoner said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See Louis Althusser's "Ideological State Apparatus"
> 
> In capitalist societies money controls everything including opinion > media.
> 
> The wealthy provide incentives to people who smear liberalism.
> 
> This is how concentrated wealth is sustained.
Click to expand...


Right you are!  As it is now here in the state's, we have 5 mega-corporations owning the news/propaganda, which is at least part of how they can fool so many fools into supporting their 1% MINORITY views.

Being rich is not enough for many, they want to be stinking rich or better, fuck everyone else.


----------



## Fordsflylow

Unkotare said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't care what gutter they throw you in at night.
> 
> 
> 
> Captain Jacks is far from a gutter.
> 
> The last time I went there, dinner for 2 cost me $174.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got mugged climbing out of the dumpster? That's a shame, and on gub'ment check day too!
Click to expand...


Just another flaming troll.  Do you EVER provide anything worthy of conversation/debate?  How exactly do you view yourself as any different than the mouthpiece/bully child on the playground?


----------



## Fordsflylow

HomeInspect said:


> Personally, I don't hate Liberals, or anyone else for that matter.  I find Liberals for the most part very naive, to the point of being clueless in many cases. They base their opinions on emotion and feeling, over reality. They also like to put words in your mouth and make false assumptions.



That's funny and about as general as one can get!


----------



## Billo_Really

Fordsflylow said:


> Cause the poor are fighting this war.


The poor always fight wars.  Jim Webb was the only member of Congress who had a son in the military stationed overseas.

I guess it's safe to say, you don't support the troops at all.  They can go fuck themselves, if the fighting bums them out.


----------



## francoHFW

#535- and total irony, which DEMS only can prove. See "Obama gutted Medicare and Workfare" and my sig pp3.  Total BS and hate.
Now, ONE DEM LIE, dupes?

OP? Brainwashed by idiotic talking points demonizing liberals since the late eighties.


----------



## Billo_Really

Fordsflylow said:


> Couldn't have stated it better myself.  Well done and very similar to how I approach politics, and life in general.  Life is too fucking short for the bs.  Even though I'm not a Missourian I do adopt there "show me" motto.
> 
> History has taught many of us important lessons.  "One" of the problems as I see it is many con lovers fail to even consider any lessons OR giving it any real thought.
> 
> I too have admitted being wrong whenever I am wrong, but it will have to be proven. and is not a gimmee.


The best way to tell if someone doesn't care about the truth, is how intolerant they are towards the opinions of others.  Someone who desires the truth, will give an ear to as many different perspectives as he possibly can on a particular issue.  That's the "fact finding" phase.  Once you got all the possible evidence related to an issue, you start analyzing it.  Puting some things in context, throwing out others.  Attaching more weight to some things and less weight to others.  Once you've done all that, now you're ready to start drawing conclusions.  And if new information comes in, you send that through the mix and test it against your previous conclusion to see if it still holds water.

But someone who won't even listen to what you have to say, or automatically dismisses what you've said as "propaganda", or "bullshit", or any number of pre-disposed views, can never be sure their conclusion is 100% accurate.  Because it was made on partial evidence. 

 That's why people thought the world was flat for so long.  They were basing their decisions on what they could physically see with the naked eye.  Once they started sailing across the ocean and getting more information about the planet, they were better able to make a decision on whether it was flat or not.


----------



## Fordsflylow

loinboy said:


> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cause the poor are fighting this war.
> 
> 
> 
> The poor always fight wars.  Jim Webb was the only member of Congress who had a son in the military stationed overseas.
> 
> I guess it's safe to say, you don't support the troops at all.  They can go fuck themselves, if the fighting bums them out.
Click to expand...


I support the troops by asking my legislative rep's to end the war.


----------



## Billo_Really

Fordsflylow said:


> I support the troops by asking my legislative rep's to end the war.


If I took your comment the wrong way, I apologize.

I just infuriates me to no end listening to many on the right accusing people of not supporting the troops, when they're so cavalier about putting them in harms way over a pack of lies.


----------



## thanatos144

As you can see in this thread progressives show again and again that they hate freedom and success unless it is for only them..... No wonder we fight against them.


----------



## NO!bama08

I hate liberals because they gave us Obama, a man hell bent on destroying America. And now they are too stupid to realize what they have done. They appear ready to do it all over again. I also hate them because they are the most hypocritical people I've ever run across. Who else could demand that a Christian man (Chick-fil-a) be tolerant of gay marriage, and yet so intolerant of his Christian lifestyle so much that they issue death threats?


----------



## Harry Dresden

Fordsflylow said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All you have is one!*?!  Wow that ONE guy ought to be able to outspend any and all of those rich fucking con assholes.  Nice try but no cigar!
> 
> Alright smart guy, what makes Soros an asshole?
> What do you think Soros will get in return for his investment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats all you asked for dumbass.....words have meaning....and whats he going to get back?.....gee i dont know,probably the same thing all those other fuckers would get back....more Money you dumbass....what the fuck do you think....
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Harry Dresden

Fordsflylow said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to look at the broad/big picture.  You know, like the facts that a relative few rich fucking assholes are trying to BUY this election and are funding only one side - the con side.  Which makes it easy to assume that they expect something in return for their investments.  What do you think that might be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what about the rich fucking assholes who fund only the Liberal side?....dont you think they want something in return?......what do you think it might be?.....the trouble with many people here is they think the real rich Democrats are different than the real rich Conservatives.....when push comes to shove...see who they side with....the people or themselves.....rich people will side with other rich people because they have something in common.....its called Money.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with the "money" portion and that's all.  I see, hear, read of no evidence that rich con vs rich libs are similar except in the $ category and which side they support.
> 
> As well, I've yet to see, read, hear and/or evidence on exactly how the con's in general will go to bat for the working joe/jane.  If you're trying to sell that bs, you best try with someone else cause I aint buying your knee deep bs.
Click to expand...


but you bought their knee deep bullshit?....must be so nice to trust people who are laughing at you the minute you leave the room......looks like they snagged another one....

*
As well, I've yet to see, read, hear and/or evidence on exactly how the con's in general will go to bat for the working joe/jane.If you're trying to sell that bs, you best try with someone else cause I aint buying your knee deep bs.*

 if you were here somewhat longer and got to know everyone a little better before you open your yap, you will find i dont think "Cons" will go to bat for anyone but themselves....so go ahead and show were i have ever tried to sell that bullshit.....i think both parties suck....including the one that has you wrapped up really nicely....


----------



## kaz

Harry Dresden said:


> As well, I've yet to see, read, hear and/or evidence on exactly how the con's in general will go to bat for the working joe/jane



One of my favorite liberal arguments.  If we're going to talk you out of socialism, we need to do it through socialist solutions.  What will help joe and jane will be jobs, which will be created by less government and lower taxes.

In fact, your argument of what we are going to do for them is in fact itself the problem.  Doing means government destroying economic value which is in fact what's keeping them unemployed.  Our economy is suffering from nothing it couldn't recover from if government would only stop helping it...


----------



## Sactowndog

kaz said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> As well, I've yet to see, read, hear and/or evidence on exactly how the con's in general will go to bat for the working joe/jane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of my favorite liberal arguments.  If we're going to talk you out of socialism, we need to do it through socialist solutions.  What will help joe and jane will be jobs, which will be created by less government and lower taxes.
> 
> In fact, your argument of what we are going to do for them is in fact itself the problem.  Doing means government destroying economic value which is in fact what's keeping them unemployed.  Our economy is suffering from nothing it couldn't recover from if government would only stop helping it...
Click to expand...


The less taxes depends on which taxes as I have shown over and over.  The trickle down theory doesn't work in a borderless world unless your intent is to strengthen Vietnam and China which is exactly what we are doing.  

Libertarianism works great except for two major flaws.  1) not all markets function smoothly or at all and government has to intercede to deal with the factors that don't work in that market.

2) Powerful entrenched monied interests can stymie progress as a country just like companies can become stuck in what they do and you miss a major paradigm shift.  Government has to balance that power.  

If Libertarians would accept these realities they would be my favorite party.  But today the chose to ignore them and therefore put the very liberties at risk they profess to cherish.


----------



## mamooth

NO!bama08 said:


> I hate liberals because they gave us Obama,



So, how's life for you and your hate-pals, walking around all day with a seething hatred towards half of your countrymen? That's got to wear on the ol' sanity. And it shows.

Now, we don't hate you. We just think you're irrational. Not a big deal. That's certainly no reason to hate you.


----------



## rdean

Corporations don't hate people.  And we know Republicans believe corporations are the only people that matter.


----------



## Shelzin

loinboy said:


> Fordsflylow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cause the poor are fighting this war.
> 
> 
> 
> The poor always fight wars.
Click to expand...

Beat me to it.


----------



## Shelzin

thanatos144 said:


> As you can see in this thread progressives show again and again that they hate freedom and success unless it is for only them..... No wonder we fight against them.


Poo-poo head.


----------



## kaz

Sactowndog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> As well, I've yet to see, read, hear and/or evidence on exactly how the con's in general will go to bat for the working joe/jane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of my favorite liberal arguments.  If we're going to talk you out of socialism, we need to do it through socialist solutions.  What will help joe and jane will be jobs, which will be created by less government and lower taxes.
> 
> In fact, your argument of what we are going to do for them is in fact itself the problem.  Doing means government destroying economic value which is in fact what's keeping them unemployed.  Our economy is suffering from nothing it couldn't recover from if government would only stop helping it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The less taxes depends on which taxes as I have shown over and over.  The trickle down theory doesn't work in a borderless world unless your intent is to strengthen Vietnam and China which is exactly what we are doing.
> 
> Libertarianism works great except for two major flaws.  1) not all markets function smoothly or at all and government has to intercede to deal with the factors that don't work in that market.
Click to expand...


You don't trust businesses who have to compete with each other by serving their customers and you don't trust giving customers a choice, you trust politicians who remove choice and competition with the power of government guns.  And you ignore they are obviously doing it for their own power.  I feel so schooled on that...



Sactowndog said:


> 2) Powerful entrenched monied interests can stymie progress as a country just like companies can become stuck in what they do and you miss a major paradigm shift.  Government has to balance that power.



Crony capitalism is a variation of socialism, not free markets.  So corporations are manipulating government, and you solution is to make government even stronger.  Gotcha.  



Sactowndog said:


> If Libertarians would accept these realities they would be my favorite party.  But today the chose to ignore them and therefore put the very liberties at risk they profess to cherish.



It's liberals who are ignoring reality.  Libertarianism puts the power of choice where it belongs, in people's hands.  People are flawed, no insight.  But they make better choices for themselves than anyone else does for them.  That you would like ideal perfection I understand, that you empower the worst of all solutions, unilateral, dictatorial government power, to get it is as dumb an idea as ignoring the mess we're in as a consequence of that fool's errand.


----------



## Billo_Really

kaz said:


> It's liberals who are ignoring reality.


What reality am I ignoring?


----------



## SuMar

mamooth said:


> NO!bama08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate liberals because they gave us Obama,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how's life for you and your hate-pals, _walking around all day with a seething hatred towards half of your countrymen?_ _You don't know that to be true._ _That's got to wear on the ol' sanity. And it shows._ _It shows? Really? Based on what? A couple of lines in his comment?_
Click to expand...

..


----------



## Londoner

Corporations and the wealthy want lower taxes, bigger subsidies, more regulatory favors, anti-trust advantages over consumers ...and bail outs (so they can play with the taxpayer's money). They want to privatize profits and socialize losses. 

Liberals (at least the few good one left) don't believe in this stuff, or at least not to the degree of their Republican counterparts.

For this reason, corporations and the wealthy provide MASSIVE incentives to anyone who will describe liberalism as socialism. Problem is: there is a difference between Keynes (who emphatically supported markets) and Marx (who believed that they eventually devolved into monopolies which gained control of government and media and exercised centralized control over laws and opinions).

These things shift over time. During the heyday of postwar Liberalism, the word Conservative was used as a pejorative, especially in the sixties. But the Right got smart. Starting in the 70s, they spent 30 years channeling profits into an overlapping network of think tanks, political action committees, television stations, radio, and publishing groups: they created a larger bullhorn than the left ever had during their postwar hegemony, and they used that bullhorn to convince people that Liberalism was evil.

Liberalism actually paved the way for the Conservative Family of the fifties. They did this by creating higher wages for the middle class (through a whole assortment of tax, labor, and regulatory policies - the most prominent of which was a strong support for unions, but also through government programs that moved tax dollars to cheap public universities). The high wages secured by the postwar New Deal economy allowed the father to support the family on just his wages; it allowed the mother to stay home and raise the kids. It created more time for families to be together. The unintended consequence of postwar Liberalism was the heyday of Conservatism and the American Family.

You gotta hand it to the GOP's disinformation war against the word Liberal. Seriously, it takes a lot of useful idiots to ignore the defeat of the Nazis, the Hoover Dam, Interstate system, and the building of a modern industrial state - all of which depended in part upon initiatives that came from Liberal Big Government. It takes heroic stupidity to stand in front of all that and say "nothing to see here".


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I don't hate Liberals. If they were capable of independent thought, I might, but they have no mind of their own so I can't hate them.

For example: if Brian Terry were killed under Bush's Gun Walker program they would be riots in the streets until the AG resigned and school children would be sending the Terry family their condolences. But since Obama and Holder were involved Libs haven't been instructed on how to respond, so they're either silent or defensive toward their collective.

IF they had any humanity left, they would at least speak out but membership in the collective does not allow for any human feeling or thoughts.  How can you hate that? it's like hating a fungus


----------



## Harry Dresden

kaz said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> As well, I've yet to see, read, hear and/or evidence on exactly how the con's in general will go to bat for the working joe/jane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of my favorite liberal arguments.  If we're going to talk you out of socialism, we need to do it through socialist solutions.  What will help joe and jane will be jobs, which will be created by less government and lower taxes.
> 
> In fact, your argument of what we are going to do for them is in fact itself the problem.  Doing means government destroying economic value which is in fact what's keeping them unemployed.  Our economy is suffering from nothing it couldn't recover from if government would only stop helping it...
Click to expand...


you quoted the wrong guy Kaz.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

rdean said:


> Corporations don't hate people.  And we know Republicans believe corporations are the only people that matter.



as this Dick named Dean has a habit of saying.....got a link proving what you said?.....


----------



## Billo_Really

CrusaderFrank said:


> I don't hate Liberals. If they were capable of independent thought, I might, but they have no mind of their own so I can't hate them.
> 
> For example: if Brain terry were killed under Bush's Gun Walker program they would be riots in the streets until the AG resigned and school children would be sending the Terry family their condolences. But since Obama and Holder were involved Libs haven't been instructed on how to respond, so they're either silent or defensive toward their collective.
> 
> IF they had any humanity left, they would at least speak out but membership in the collective does not allow for any human feeling or thoughts.  How can you hate that? it's like hating a fungus


Who's "Brain terry"?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

loinboy said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate Liberals. If they were capable of independent thought, I might, but they have no mind of their own so I can't hate them.
> 
> For example: if Brain terry were killed under Bush's Gun Walker program they would be riots in the streets until the AG resigned and school children would be sending the Terry family their condolences. But since Obama and Holder were involved Libs haven't been instructed on how to respond, so they're either silent or defensive toward their collective.
> 
> IF they had any humanity left, they would at least speak out but membership in the collective does not allow for any human feeling or thoughts.  How can you hate that? it's like hating a fungus
> 
> 
> 
> Who's "Brain terry"?
Click to expand...


Typo fixed. 

Thank you for making my point


----------



## initforme

I've never bought the label thing.   Liberal conservative right wing left wing.....we're all people.  Labels are used by cowards.


----------



## HomeInspect

rdean said:


> Corporations don't hate people.  And we know Republicans believe corporations are the only people that matter.



LOL.. that's like saying Democrats believe that lazy ass welfare slugs are the only people that matter.  Corporations provide jobs. I like people who provide jobs. Employment is enjoyment. When will Obama and the rest of the mindless left allow corporations to grow, quit chasing them away, and create more jobs?


----------



## Sactowndog

kaz said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of my favorite liberal arguments.  If we're going to talk you out of socialism, we need to do it through socialist solutions.  What will help joe and jane will be jobs, which will be created by less government and lower taxes.
> 
> In fact, your argument of what we are going to do for them is in fact itself the problem.  Doing means government destroying economic value which is in fact what's keeping them unemployed.  Our economy is suffering from nothing it couldn't recover from if government would only stop helping it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The less taxes depends on which taxes as I have shown over and over.  The trickle down theory doesn't work in a borderless world unless your intent is to strengthen Vietnam and China which is exactly what we are doing.
> 
> Libertarianism works great except for two major flaws.  1) not all markets function smoothly or at all and government has to intercede to deal with the factors that don't work in that market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't trust businesses who have to compete with each other by serving their customers and you don't trust giving customers a choice, you trust politicians who remove choice and competition with the power of government guns.  And you ignore they are obviously doing it for their own power.  I feel so schooled on that...
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with trust.  Businesses are going to maximize profits as they are suppose to do.  They are regulated by supply and demand "if" their is a well functioning market.   But those markets don't always occur because they have some built in assumptions:

1) It assumes that people can or will walk away as the price rises

2) it assumes people have information about what they are buying

3) and it assumes a linkage between cost and benefit 

Almost all of these things are missing in health care.  The most important being an unwillingness to let people drop out of the market.  That means companies will do what they do when you have a nearly vertical demand line and maximize profits.  That is why our per capita health care costs are 1.8 times the next closest country.  

This is not political theory and whether I trust or don't trust companies.  It is straight economics.  Nor do I believe in limited choice which would be a single provider.  Read what I wrote,  a single payer yes but not a single provider.


----------



## Billo_Really

CrusaderFrank said:


> Typo fixed.
> 
> Thank you for making my point


I didn't make your point.  I'm not aware of the incident you were referring too and was asking you for some more information. It had nothing to do with not being "instructed" by anyone.  Since I still don't know what issue you're talking about, I can't be "defensive towards my collective", now can I.  Nor can I speak out against something I'm not aware of, so the "silence" is obviously true (to a point).

Now, if you told me WTF you were talking about, I might be able to speak out then.  I'm not going to comment on something I know nothing about.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember you are (or were) a cop. And that's pretty hard to believe, seeing how flawed your logic is.  My experience with cops has shown me they're pretty good analytical thinkers.  You, on the other hand, are like:

an NBA player 5' tall
a marriage counsular who's never had a date
a CPA who's declared bankruptcy
You don't seem to have the chops for the job.


----------



## Billo_Really

initforme said:


> I've never bought the label thing.   Liberal conservative right wing left wing.....we're all people.  Labels are used by cowards.


Exactly!

It's a way of avoiding   issues you're too afraid to talk about in detail.


----------



## Sactowndog

kaz said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Powerful entrenched monied interests can stymie progress as a country just like companies can become stuck in what they do and you miss a major paradigm shift.  Government has to balance that power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crony capitalism is a variation of socialism, not free markets.  So corporations are manipulating government, and you solution is to make government even stronger.  Gotcha.
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Libertarians would accept these realities they would be my favorite party.  But today the chose to ignore them and therefore put the very liberties at risk they profess to cherish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's liberals who are ignoring reality.  Libertarianism puts the power of choice where it belongs, in people's hands.  People are flawed, no insight.  But they make better choices for themselves than anyone else does for them.  That you would like ideal perfection I understand, that you empower the worst of all solutions, unilateral, dictatorial government power, to get it is as dumb an idea as ignoring the mess we're in as a consequence of that fool's errand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to argue against what I type not against some preconceived notion of what you think I believe.
> 
> In the case of government funding paradigm breaking technology.   Rarely will corporations fund the destruction of their main business.  Have you read the Innovator's Dilemma?
> 
> It is not anti choice for the government to fund research which will compete with established industries.  It is in fact pro choice.  Business within their sphere of control are more anti choice then governments.  You have an overly optimistic view of the market than what I have.  But in no case am I anti choice and everything I have proposed in fact increases choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

initforme said:


> Labels are used by cowards.




You probably spend hours sitting at home in the dark screaming that at your underwear.


----------



## ecinicola

i detest Liberals because they favor communism.


----------



## bripat9643

initforme said:


> I've never bought the label thing.   Liberal conservative right wing left wing.....we're all people.  Labels are used by cowards.



"People" is a label, and so are "coward" and "label."


----------



## Immanuel

Sactowndog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The less taxes depends on which taxes as I have shown over and over.  The trickle down theory doesn't work in a borderless world unless your intent is to strengthen Vietnam and China which is exactly what we are doing.
> 
> Libertarianism works great except for two major flaws.  1) not all markets function smoothly or at all and government has to intercede to deal with the factors that don't work in that market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't trust businesses who have to compete with each other by serving their customers and you don't trust giving customers a choice, you trust politicians who remove choice and competition with the power of government guns.  And you ignore they are obviously doing it for their own power.  I feel so schooled on that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with trust.  Businesses are going to maximize profits as they are suppose to do.  They are regulated by supply and demand "if" their is a well functioning market.   But those markets don't always occur because they have some built in assumptions:
> 
> 1) It assumes that people can or will walk away as the price rises
> 
> 2) it assumes people have information about what they are buying
> 
> 3) and it assumes a linkage between cost and benefit
> 
> Almost all of these things are missing in health care.  The most important being an unwillingness to let people drop out of the market.  That means companies will do what they do when you have a nearly vertical demand line and maximize profits.  That is why our per capita health care costs are 1.8 times the next closest country.
> 
> This is not political theory and whether I trust or don't trust companies.  It is straight economics.  Nor do I believe in limited choice which would be a single provider.  Read what I wrote,  a single payer yes but not a single provider.
Click to expand...


I wonder if you realize that what hinders a "well functioning market" the most is government regulaton?

I believe there must be some regulation, but unfortunately our "leaders" (regardless of party) have decided that as much regulation as they can get away with is best.  It is all about control and those so called leaders are out for control.

Immie


----------



## kaz

Harry Dresden said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> As well, I've yet to see, read, hear and/or evidence on exactly how the con's in general will go to bat for the working joe/jane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of my favorite liberal arguments.  If we're going to talk you out of socialism, we need to do it through socialist solutions.  What will help joe and jane will be jobs, which will be created by less government and lower taxes.
> 
> In fact, your argument of what we are going to do for them is in fact itself the problem.  Doing means government destroying economic value which is in fact what's keeping them unemployed.  Our economy is suffering from nothing it couldn't recover from if government would only stop helping it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you quoted the wrong guy Kaz.....
Click to expand...


My apologies Harry


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't trust businesses who have to compete with each other by serving their customers and you don't trust giving customers a choice, you trust politicians who remove choice and competition with the power of government guns.  And you ignore they are obviously doing it for their own power.  I feel so schooled on that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with trust.  Businesses are going to maximize profits as they are suppose to do.  They are regulated by supply and demand "if" their is a well functioning market.   But those markets don't always occur because they have some built in assumptions:
> 
> 1) It assumes that people can or will walk away as the price rises
> 
> 2) it assumes people have information about what they are buying
> 
> 3) and it assumes a linkage between cost and benefit
> 
> Almost all of these things are missing in health care.  The most important being an unwillingness to let people drop out of the market.  That means companies will do what they do when you have a nearly vertical demand line and maximize profits.  That is why our per capita health care costs are 1.8 times the next closest country.
> 
> This is not political theory and whether I trust or don't trust companies.  It is straight economics.  Nor do I believe in limited choice which would be a single provider.  Read what I wrote,  a single payer yes but not a single provider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if you realize that what hinders a "well functioning market" the most is government regulaton?
> 
> I believe there must be some regulation, but unfortunately our "leaders" (regardless of party) have decided that as much regulation as they can get away with is best.  It is all about control and those so called leaders are out for control.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


There is no 'well functioning market' without regulations. Just as there is no 'society' without laws.

Do you understand why our economy crashed and burned in 2008 Immie?


----------



## Billo_Really

kaz said:


> My apologies Harry


I asked you a question back on post #552, are you going to answer it?  Yes or no?


----------



## OODA_Loop

Bfgrn said:


> There is no 'well functioning market' without regulations. Just as there is no 'society' without laws.
> 
> Do you understand why our economy crashed and burned in 2008 Immie?



Over-regulation removed traditional market risk forces allowing investors to make risky investments they otheriwse would not have on their own merit and risk profile.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



I dont know how much of the 'hate' you perceive is genuine. On internet message boards people do tend to get hyperbolic, so to say. Alot of what one would call hate if said face to face is just a desire to get attention or emphasize a point that could be better done most often with lower levels of rhetorical venom.

But there are some conservatives who genuinely hate liberals, and vice versa as well. Maybe there is some personal loss they associate with the other side or something, I dont know. These types tend to say stupid things for effect and when you are trying to have a reasonable thread and these jerks troll it up, it tends to irritate and evoke harsher responses that are more directed at the individual rather than all liberals or all conservatives in general.


I think most people here agree with classic liberalism, i.e. having freedom of expression, a democratic system for the most important officials, a secular state with religious freedom, the right to vote, equal standing before the law, and so forth. But the progressives have left most people behind as they have redefined almost everything about 'liberalism' till I doubt Humphrey, JFK, LBJ or FDR would recognise it as something that they would associate themselves with today.

Todays politically correct liberal establishment is one of the most intolerant, irrational, religion hating, inhumane and contemptuous ideologies since the fall of communism. I think I would honestly live under Sharia than a second Obama term in office, thus my intended vote for the Liar Romney despite my fear of what he might do once in office. Romney maybe the anti-Christ, but Obama is simply off the scale.


----------



## JimBowie1958

OODA_Loop said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no 'well functioning market' without regulations. Just as there is no 'society' without laws.
> 
> Do you understand why our economy crashed and burned in 2008 Immie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over-regulation removed traditional market risk forces allowing investors to make risky investments they otheriwse would not have on their own merit and risk profile.
Click to expand...


There is a Golden MEan in there somewhere, between over regulation and none at all.

The derivatives market needs some oversight, something we should have learned four years ago but did not fix.

So we willcrash one more time and this next one will be a doozey.


----------



## Bfgrn

OODA_Loop said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no 'well functioning market' without regulations. Just as there is no 'society' without laws.
> 
> Do you understand why our economy crashed and burned in 2008 Immie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over-regulation removed traditional market risk forces allowing investors to make risky investments they otheriwse would not have on their own merit and risk profile.
Click to expand...


WOW, someone admitting that cognitive dissonance is their mantra...

If you are going to make ignorant statements, you need to tell us what 'over-regulations' removed these 'risks'. Because the ONLY risks never occurred. These Wall Street slime balls are not in prison.


----------



## Bfgrn

JimBowie1958 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know how much of the 'hate' you perceive is genuine. On internet message boards people do tend to get hyperbolic, so to say. Alot of what one would call hate if said face to face is just a desire to get attention or emphasize a point that could be better done most often with lower levels of rhetorical venom.
> 
> But there are some conservatives who genuinely hate liberals, and vice versa as well. Maybe there is some personal loss they associate with the other side or something, I dont know. These types tend to say stupid things for effect and when you are trying to have a reasonable thread and these jerks troll it up, it tends to irritate and evoke harsher responses that are more directed at the individual rather than all liberals or all conservatives in general.
> 
> 
> I think most people here agree with classic liberalism, i.e. having freedom of expression, a democratic system for the most important officials, a secular state with religious freedom, the right to vote, equal standing before the law, and so forth. But the progressives have left most people behind as they have redefined almost everything about 'liberalism' till I doubt Humphrey, JFK, LBJ or FDR would recognise it as something that they would associate themselves with today.
> 
> Todays politically correct liberal establishment is one of the most intolerant, irrational, religion hating, inhumane and contemptuous ideologies since the fall of communism. I think I would honestly live under Sharia than a second Obama term in office, thus my intended vote for the Liar Romney despite my fear of what he might do once in office. Romney maybe the anti-Christ, but Obama is simply off the scale.
Click to expand...


Pretty sad JB, to hear someone who has been brainwashed by the right, because it sounds like you had a brain at one time. I am JFK liberal, and I can guarantee if JFK were alive today, he would chastise today's Democrats for not being liberal enough.

The most intolerant, irrational, religion hating, inhumane and contemptuous ideologies since the fall of communism is Marketism. People like OODA_Loop who believe that the 'invisible hand' is fairy dust. The social Darwinists who call people on social insurance programs parasites, and the Ayn Rand psychopaths who believe We, the People should be replaced with I, the Person.

I am praying that Ike is right:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower


----------



## OODA_Loop

Bfgrn said:


> If you are going to make ignorant statements, you need to tell us what 'over-regulations' removed these 'risks'.



Allowing derivatives to be traded on mortgages that had high risk profiles by virtue of .gov regulation requiring they be issued to customers who weren't eligible on their own numbers.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bfgrn said:


> Pretty sad JB, to hear someone who has been brainwashed by the right, because it sounds like you had a brain at one time. I am JFK liberal, and I can guarantee if JFK were alive today, he would chastise today's Democrats for not being liberal enough.



Lol, then yo dont know JFK very well as he was opposed to extreme socialism, supported gun rights, and supported Joe McCarthy. He also would not support Affirmative Action, reverse racism, PC speech codes and hate crime laws. He was a decorated war veteran and patriot of the first order. About the only thing he had in common with liberals today was his tendency to be a philanderer. 

I also note that you did not even bother to try and claim LBJ, FDR or Humphrey would have remained Dem. Not even going to start on Truman and Wilson.



Bfgrn said:


> The most intolerant, irrational, religion hating, inhumane and contemptuous ideologies since the fall of communism is Marketism. People like OODA_Loop who believe that the 'invisible hand' is fairy dust. The social Darwinists who call people on social insurance programs parasites, and the Ayn Rand psychopaths who believe We, the People should be replaced with I, the Person.



'Marketism'? Is making up words what you consider part of a rational rebutal? The 'invisible hand' is not 'Fairy dust' it is a simple fact that people can best make the best decisions for their own lives rather than some central committee.

Randian Libertariansim does have its extremists, sure, but I could live in that environment a whole hell of a lot better than a 'workers paradise'.



Bfgrn said:


> I am praying that Ike is right:
> 
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower



He was right about all of that in his day, and his observation is still right except for the farm subsides that have become another form of corporate welfare.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bfgrn said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no 'well functioning market' without regulations. Just as there is no 'society' without laws.
> 
> Do you understand why our economy crashed and burned in 2008 Immie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over-regulation removed traditional market risk forces allowing investors to make risky investments they otheriwse would not have on their own merit and risk profile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW, someone admitting that cognitive dissonance is their mantra...
> 
> If you are going to make ignorant statements, you need to tell us what 'over-regulations' removed these 'risks'. Because the ONLY risks never occurred. These Wall Street slime balls are not in prison.
Click to expand...


Can you essplain the udnerlined text? It makes no sense to me.

And some of these people responsible should be in prison, and we should start with Bernanke, Greenspan and the people who ran Fredy Mac and Sally Mae.


----------



## Bfgrn

JimBowie1958 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sad JB, to hear someone who has been brainwashed by the right, because it sounds like you had a brain at one time. I am JFK liberal, and I can guarantee if JFK were alive today, he would chastise today's Democrats for not being liberal enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, then yo dont know JFK very well as he was opposed to extreme socialism, supported gun rights, and supported Joe McCarthy. He also would not support Affirmative Action, reverse racism, PC speech codes and hate crime laws. He was a decorated war veteran and patriot of the first order. About the only thing he had in common with liberals today was his tendency to be a philanderer.
> 
> I also note that you did not even bother to try and claim LBJ, FDR or Humphrey would have remained Dem. Not even going to start on Truman and Wilson.
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most intolerant, irrational, religion hating, inhumane and contemptuous ideologies since the fall of communism is Marketism. People like OODA_Loop who believe that the 'invisible hand' is fairy dust. The social Darwinists who call people on social insurance programs parasites, and the Ayn Rand psychopaths who believe We, the People should be replaced with I, the Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Marketism'? Is making up words what you consider part of a rational rebutal? The 'invisible hand' is not 'Fairy dust' it is a simple fact that people can best make the best decisions for their own lives rather than some central committee.
> 
> Randian Libertariansim does have its extremists, sure, but I could live in that environment a whole hell of a lot better than a 'workers paradise'.
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am praying that Ike is right:
> 
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was right about all of that in his day, and his observation is still right except for the farm subsides that have become another form of corporate welfare.
Click to expand...


"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

Well, you don't know John F. Kennedy. If you hated Ted Kennedy, you would have despised Jack and Bobby. Medicare, civil rights laws and the war on poverty were ALL New Frontier programs LBJ adopted.

What is really disturbing is how you right wing turds have polarized brains. No liberals, Democrats or even President Obama who you despise are calling for 'extreme socialism'. And Democrats have called for rational gun control measures like banning assault weapons.

The term 'Marketist' perfectly explains the blind religious like dogma and doctrinaire of America's version of Marxists. Marx, Engel, Stalin and Hitler were big believers is social Darwinism.

As far as good old Harry S., I will let him speak for himself:

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman


----------



## Sactowndog

OODA_Loop said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no 'well functioning market' without regulations. Just as there is no 'society' without laws.
> 
> Do you understand why our economy crashed and burned in 2008 Immie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over-regulation removed traditional market risk forces allowing investors to make risky investments they otheriwse would not have on their own merit and risk profile.
Click to expand...


Explain this one.  What over regulation led to the elimination of risk forces and allowed risky investments?


----------



## OODA_Loop

Sactowndog said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no 'well functioning market' without regulations. Just as there is no 'society' without laws.
> 
> Do you understand why our economy crashed and burned in 2008 Immie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over-regulation removed traditional market risk forces allowing investors to make risky investments they otheriwse would not have on their own merit and risk profile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain this one.  What over regulation led to the elimination of risk forces and allowed risky investments?
Click to expand...


Allowing derivatives to be traded on mortgages that had high risk profiles by virtue of .gov regulation requiring they be issued to customers who weren't eligible on their own numbers.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bfgrn said:


> "Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
> President John F. Kennedy



Thats pretty much true except now it is the Democrats that represent the most wealthy and they use government regs, racism, political cronyism and organized crime to keep the Middle Class down, parasitically feeding off its ability to produce wealth.



Bfgrn said:


> Well, you don't know John F. Kennedy. If you hated Ted Kennedy, you would have despised Jack and Bobby. Medicare, civil rights laws and the war on poverty were ALL New Frontier programs LBJ adopted.



Of course, and I have no problem with most of that, but Nixon pushed it beyond LBJs intent and I suspect it was a Nixonian ploy to spoil the very thought of such programs in the minds of most Americans. 

What JFK said and believed is presented here:
*My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. 

Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men. 

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. 

Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future. 

A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. 

The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission. 

Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.

A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is not likely to have what it takes to make a living. Today's military rejects include tomorrow's hard-core unemployed. 

The best road to progress is freedom's road. 

Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom. 

I look forward to a great future for America - a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose. 

The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.

Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others. 

It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war.* 

That kind of talking would get you banned from the Democratic Party and a rent-a-mob outside your office courtesy of Soros and his hired guns in a heart beat. Soros owns the Democratic Party and JFK would not have shared it with him for a second.




Bfgrn said:


> What is really disturbing is how you right wing turds have polarized brains.



Thats what I thought; you just be trollin.



Bfgrn said:


> No liberals, Democrats or even President Obama who you despise are calling for 'extreme socialism'.



Government take over of businesses and shafting their shareholders, and taking over entire industries is socialism. It isnt the most extreme form of socialism but it is socialism and extreme for the American public's tastes.



Bfgrn said:


> And Democrats have called for rational gun control measures like banning assault weapons.



Bullshit. They did not ban assault weapons at all. They banned scarey looking weapons that made them wet their panties.



Bfgrn said:


> The term 'Marketist' perfectly explains the blind religious like dogma and doctrinaire of America's version of Marxists. Marx, Engel, Stalin and Hitler were big believers is social Darwinism.



Marketism = social Darwinism = fascism = communism?

Dude, find your meds, please.



Bfgrn said:


> As far as good old Harry S., I will let him speak for himself:
> 
> "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
> President Harry S. Truman



That was true then and some of it is true now.

Today though it is the Dems that promise racial equality while meaning all races are equally poor and enslaved to the government.

The Dems say that they want to grow jobs and build industry but just cant seem to find the time as they grow government and build a monolythic state.

The Dems say they are for democracy but only as long as they can steal votes and engage in other kinds of fraud and to stop them is racist.

The Dems say that they are for freedom then jail people for thought crimes and cannot find anything wrong with Chavez.

The Republicans are scarey, true, but the Democrats are worse than the Black Plague.


----------



## Bfgrn

OODA_Loop said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over-regulation removed traditional market risk forces allowing investors to make risky investments they otheriwse would not have on their own merit and risk profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain this one.  What over regulation led to the elimination of risk forces and allowed risky investments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allowing derivatives to be traded on mortgages that had high risk profiles by virtue of .gov regulation requiring they be issued to customers who weren't eligible on their own numbers.
Click to expand...


Here is your problem. What crashed our economy was high crimes by the wealthy, that benefited wealthy people who had no interest in securing traditional mortgage terms because there was never an intent to reside in the homes they bought for speculation.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bfgrn said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain this one.  What over regulation led to the elimination of risk forces and allowed risky investments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing derivatives to be traded on mortgages that had high risk profiles by virtue of .gov regulation requiring they be issued to customers who weren't eligible on their own numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is your problem. What crashed our economy was high crimes by the wealthy, that benefited wealthy people who had no interest in securing traditional mortgage terms because there was never an intent to reside in the homes they bought for speculation.
Click to expand...


Are you stating that wealthy people bought homes with subprimes?

Are you fucking high?

Flippers mostly used their own lines of credit or cash, and did not have to use subprimes. Of the subprimes they did use most were balloon martgages, not the ARMs that really killed the market. They were only 25% ofd the foreclosed market:
http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/12/13/house-flippers-pumped-up-the-housing-bubble-report-says/
The above is an interesting article in that it also gives facts that undermine its own claims, lol.

And his pointthat you plainly missed was how the derivative contracts were based on too much of this bad credit and lost all their value. Our banks today are sitting on trillions of dollars of MBS, SIVs, etc, that they cannot sell because no one will buy them, which means that they are worthless assets in any practical way, and yet the government is letting the banks carry that worthless credit as level three assets and at the value that they bought it at, not what they can sell it for.

The whole freaking system is bankrupt but the people in charge are pretending that if they all act like everyones solvent then maybe they will become solvent. Its all bullshit and its going to crash again.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Bfgrn said:


> Here is your problem. What crashed our economy was high crimes by the wealthy, that benefited wealthy people who had no interest in securing traditional mortgage terms because there was never an intent to reside in the homes they bought for speculation.



The Wealthy don't need mortgages for speculation.

It is the ham and eggers that thought they were real estate speculators when thier 9-5 couldnt even support their own debt load.

By the time the average Joe is in .....its over.


----------



## Bfgrn

JimBowie1958 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats pretty much true except now it is the Democrats that represent the most wealthy and they use government regs, racism, political cronyism and organized crime to keep the Middle Class down, parasitically feeding off its ability to produce wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you don't know John F. Kennedy. If you hated Ted Kennedy, you would have despised Jack and Bobby. Medicare, civil rights laws and the war on poverty were ALL New Frontier programs LBJ adopted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, and I have no problem with most of that, but Nixon pushed it beyond LBJs intent and I suspect it was a Nixonian ploy to spoil the very thought of such programs in the minds of most Americans.
> 
> What JFK said and believed is presented here:
> *My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
> 
> Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men.
> 
> Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
> 
> Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.
> 
> A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.
> 
> The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.
> 
> Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.
> 
> A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is not likely to have what it takes to make a living. Today's military rejects include tomorrow's hard-core unemployed.
> 
> The best road to progress is freedom's road.
> 
> Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom.
> 
> I look forward to a great future for America - a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose.
> 
> The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.
> 
> Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.
> 
> It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war.*
> 
> That kind of talking would get you banned from the Democratic Party and a rent-a-mob outside your office courtesy of Soros and his hired guns in a heart beat. Soros owns the Democratic Party and JFK would not have shared it with him for a second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what I thought; you just be trollin.
> 
> 
> 
> Government take over of businesses and shafting their shareholders, and taking over entire industries is socialism. It isnt the most extreme form of socialism but it is socialism and extreme for the American public's tastes.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. They did not ban assault weapons at all. They banned scarey looking weapons that made them wet their panties.
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term 'Marketist' perfectly explains the blind religious like dogma and doctrinaire of America's version of Marxists. Marx, Engel, Stalin and Hitler were big believers is social Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marketism = social Darwinism = fascism = communism?
> 
> Dude, find your meds, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as good old Harry S., I will let him speak for himself:
> 
> "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
> President Harry S. Truman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was true then and some of it is true now.
> 
> Today though it is the Dems that promise racial equality while meaning all races are equally poor and enslaved to the government.
> 
> The Dems say that they want to grow jobs and build industry but just cant seem to find the time as they grow government and build a monolythic state.
> 
> The Dems say they are for democracy but only as long as they can steal votes and engage in other kinds of fraud and to stop them is racist.
> 
> The Dems say that they are for freedom then jail people for thought crimes and cannot find anything wrong with Chavez.
> 
> The Republicans are scarey, true, but the Democrats are worse than the Black Plague.
Click to expand...


You have built quite a straw man, but it is not based on liberal beliefs or intent. It is built on right wing projection and yes, POLARIZED thinking. It exposes the core of conservatism...FEAR, paranoia and insecurity.

I have to laugh at your attempt to define JFK's beliefs using out of context sentences. I have read or listened to almost every one of the speeches those sentences were taken from. And I know the context and message of those speeches. You really need to educate yourself before you try to discuss who Jack Kennedy was or wasn't with me.

*"I look forward to a great future for America - a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose"*

Let's add context to one of those sentences, because it is one of my favorite JFK speeches and it revealed to me why Jack Kennedy was not just a man of his time, but a man for all time. If you know Jack Kennedy's life story, you would know that much of his wisdom came from also being "one acquainted with the night." 

Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum






"Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future. Although Amherst has been in the forefront of extending aid to needy and talented students, private colleges, taken as a whole, draw 50 percent of their students from the wealthiest 10 percent of our Nation. And even State universities and other public institutions derive 25 percent of their students from this group. In March 1962, persons of 18 years or older who had not completed high school made up 46 percent of the total labor force, and such persons comprised 64 percent of those who were unemployed. And in 1958, the lowest fifth of the families in the United States had 4 1/2 percent of the total personal income, the highest fifth, 44 1/2 percent. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible.

     The problems which this country now faces are staggering, both at home and abroad. We need the service, in the great sense, of every educated man or woman to find 10 million jobs in the next 2 1/2 years, to govern our relations--a country which lived in isolation for 150 years, and is now suddenly the leader of the free world--to govern our relations with over 100 countries, to govern those relations with success so that the balance of power remains strong on the side of freedom, to make it possible for Americans of all different races and creeds to live together in harmony, to make it possible for a world to exist in diversity and freedom. All this requires the best of all of us.

     Therefore, I am proud to come to this college, whose graduates have recognized this obligation and to say to those who are now here that the need is endless, and I am confident that you will respond.

     Robert Frost said:

               Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
               I took the one less traveled by,
               And that has made all the difference.

     I hope that road will not be the less traveled by, and I hope your commitment to the Great Republic's interest in the years to come will be worthy of your long inheritance since your beginning.

     This day devoted to the memory of Robert Frost offers an opportunity for reflection which is prized by politicians as well as by others, and even by poets, for Robert Frost was one of the granite figures of our time in America. He was supremely two things: an artist and an American. A nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces but also by the men it honors, the men it remembers.

     In America, our heroes have customarily run to men of large accomplishments. But today this college and country honors a man whose contribution was not to our size but to our spirit, not to our political beliefs but to our insight, not to our self-esteem, but to our self- comprehension. In honoring Robert Frost, we therefore can pay honor to the deepest sources of our national strength. That strength takes many forms, and the most obvious forms are not always the most significant. The men who create power make an indispensable contribution to the Nation's greatness, but the men who question power make a contribution just as indispensable, especially when that questioning is disinterested, for they determine whether we use power or power uses us.

     Our national strength matters, but the spirit which informs and controls our strength matters just as much. This was the special significance of Robert Frost. He brought an unsparing instinct for reality to bear on the platitudes and pieties of society. His sense of the human tragedy fortified him against self-deception and easy consolation. "I have been" he wrote, "one acquainted with the night." And because he knew the midnight as well as the high noon, because he understood the ordeal as well as the triumph of the human spirit, he gave his age strength with which to overcome despair. At bottom, he held a deep faith in the spirit of man, and it is hardly an accident that Robert Frost coupled poetry and power, for he saw poetry as the means of saving power from itself. When power leads men towards arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the areas of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses. For art establishes the basic human truth which must serve as the touchstone of our judgment.

     The artist, however faithful to his personal vision of reality, becomes the last champion of the individual mind and sensibility against an intrusive society and an officious state. The great artist is thus a solitary figure. He has, as Frost said, a lover's quarrel with the world. In pursuing his perceptions of reality, he must often sail against the currents of his time. This is not a popular role. If Robert Frost was much honored in his lifetime, it was because a good many preferred to ignore his darker truths. Yet in retrospect, we see how the artist's fidelity has strengthened the fibre of our national life.

     If sometimes our great artist have been the most critical of our society, it is because their sensitivity and their concern for justice, which must motivate any true artist, makes him aware that our Nation falls short of its highest potential. I see little of more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist.

     If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him. We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth. And as Mr. MacLeish once remarked of poets, there is nothing worse for our trade than to be in style. In free society art is not a weapon and it does not belong to the spheres of polemic and ideology. Artists are not engineers of the soul. It may be different elsewhere. But democratic society--in it, the highest duty of the writer, the composer, the artist is to remain true to himself and to let the chips fall where they may. In serving his vision of the truth, the artist best serves his nation. And the nation which disdains the mission of art invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."

     I look forward to a great future for America, a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose. I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, which will protect the beauty of our natural environment, which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past, and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future.

     I look forward to an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward achievement in business or statecraft. I look forward to an America which will steadily raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and which will steadily enlarge cultural opportunities for all of our citizens. And I look forward to an America which commands respect throughout the world not only for its strength but for its civilization as well. And I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction.

     Robert Frost was often skeptical about projects for human improvement, yet I do not think he would disdain this hope. As he wrote during the uncertain days of the Second War:

               Take human nature altogether since time
               began . . .
               And it must be a little more in favor of
               man,
               Say a fraction of one percent at the very
               least . . .
               Our hold on this planet wouldn't have so
               increased."


more...

The President and the Poet - John F. Kennedy at Amherst, October 26, 1963


----------



## GoneBezerk

As time passes from an event like 9-11, the mortgage industry crash, dot-com crash, etc.....liberals come along and invent their history of the event painting themselves as a hero in the event and never, never the cause of it.

So when the CRA helped create bad mortgages they now lie about it even claiming "rich people" caused the mortgage loan defaults, not black people given homes in the ghetto that they didn't earn or deserve based on skin color. 

Liberals are just scumbags that tell their lies when they believe the truth is too far in the past to remember....


----------



## Bfgrn

GoneBezerk said:


> As time passes from an event like 9-11, the mortgage industry crash, dot-com crash, etc.....liberals come along and invent their history of the event painting themselves as a hero in the event and never, never the cause of it.
> 
> So when the CRA helped create bad mortgages they now lie about it even claiming "rich people" caused the mortgage loan defaults, not black people given homes in the ghetto that they didn't earn or deserve based on skin color.
> 
> Liberals are just scumbags that tell their lies when they believe the truth is too far in the past to remember....



The only fabricating of history is coming from the right, not the left...





Feds Kroszner: Dont Blame CRA

Federal Reserve governor Randall Kroszner, a conservative economist on leave from a teaching post at the University of Chicago Booth Graduate School of Business, says the Community Reinvestment Act isnt to blame for the subprime mess, despite some accusations to the contrary.





Kroszner


First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations are related to the CRA. Second, CRA- related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together we believe that the available evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis, he said in a speech today in Washington.

The Community Reinvestment Act, which dates to the 1970s, was crafted to combat discrimination and red-lining. It requires regulators to press banks to lend to low-income and minority neighborhoods. Kroszners speech summarized research the Fed has been doing on two basic questions: (1) What share of subprime loans were related to CRA? Answer: Loans that are the focus of the CRA represent a very small portion of the subprime lending market, casting considerable doubt on the potential contribution that the law could have made to the subprime mortgage crisis. (2) How have CRA-related subprime loans performed relative to other loans. Answer: [D]elinquency rates were high in all neighborhood income groups, and that CRA-related subprime loans performed in a comparable manner to other subprime loans.

Fed economists found that about 60% of higher-priced loan originations  the technical definition of subrpime  went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods who arent targeted by CRA. More than 20% of the higher-priced loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas by institutions that arent banks  and arent covered by CRA.

The striking result, Kroszner said: *Only 6% of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers* or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes.

This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis. Banks can also meet CRA obligations by buying loans from mortgage brokers, he noted. But less than 2% of the higher-priced loans (those would help banks meet CRA requirements) sold by independent mortgage companies were purchased by CRA-covered institutions.

Feds Kroszner: Dont Blame CRA - Real Time Economics - WSJ


----------



## GoneBezerk

Bullshit, the kind you eat 24/7.



Bfgrn said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> As time passes from an event like 9-11, the mortgage industry crash, dot-com crash, etc.....liberals come along and invent their history of the event painting themselves as a hero in the event and never, never the cause of it.
> 
> So when the CRA helped create bad mortgages they now lie about it even claiming "rich people" caused the mortgage loan defaults, not black people given homes in the ghetto that they didn't earn or deserve based on skin color.
> 
> Liberals are just scumbags that tell their lies when they believe the truth is too far in the past to remember....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fabricating of history is coming from the right, not the left...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feds Kroszner: Dont Blame CRA
> 
> Federal Reserve governor Randall Kroszner, a conservative economist on leave from a teaching post at the University of Chicago Booth Graduate School of Business, says the Community Reinvestment Act isnt to blame for the subprime mess, despite some accusations to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kroszner
> 
> 
> First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations are related to the CRA. Second, CRA- related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together we believe that the available evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis, he said in a speech today in Washington.
> 
> The Community Reinvestment Act, which dates to the 1970s, was crafted to combat discrimination and red-lining. It requires regulators to press banks to lend to low-income and minority neighborhoods. Kroszners speech summarized research the Fed has been doing on two basic questions: (1) What share of subprime loans were related to CRA? Answer: Loans that are the focus of the CRA represent a very small portion of the subprime lending market, casting considerable doubt on the potential contribution that the law could have made to the subprime mortgage crisis. (2) How have CRA-related subprime loans performed relative to other loans. Answer: [D]elinquency rates were high in all neighborhood income groups, and that CRA-related subprime loans performed in a comparable manner to other subprime loans.
> 
> Fed economists found that about 60% of higher-priced loan originations  the technical definition of subrpime  went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods who arent targeted by CRA. More than 20% of the higher-priced loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas by institutions that arent banks  and arent covered by CRA.
> 
> The striking result, Kroszner said: *Only 6% of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers* or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes.
> 
> This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis. Banks can also meet CRA obligations by buying loans from mortgage brokers, he noted. But less than 2% of the higher-priced loans (those would help banks meet CRA requirements) sold by independent mortgage companies were purchased by CRA-covered institutions.
> 
> Feds Kroszner: Dont Blame CRA - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Click to expand...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fannie and Freddie are the financial binary black holes at the epicenter of the meltdown.  They set the standard for AAA paper that included, at the very end, "No Income, No Asset" loans.


----------



## skookerasbil

You'll find in life that most people dislike fringe groups or oddballs. Liberals make up less than 21% of the population........and those on eht far left not even 50% of that. k0oks like those found on this forum are almost invariably social oddballs, miserable and angry at the world. They look at somebody else to blame for their poor personal decisions that led to hyper-levels of jealousy. Nobody likes negative,miserable people who get angst about everythng in life.

Why do you think there are so many liberals with tens of thousands of posts in a short time span? Because nobody wants to be around these people so they hermit out at their PC their whole lives. ANybody check TRUTHMATTERS post count lately................something like 6 billion posts in 5 years. These people are social invalids and they're providing us with advice on how the world should run??


Oh......and only a k00k lefty cant see that the CRA was THE direct cause of the housing bust. That genius legislation signed by Carter and doubled down upon by Clinton in the 90's facilitated risky bank behavior. Whenever government gets into the market, things get fucked up.


----------



## Bfgrn

CrusaderFrank said:


> Fannie and Freddie are the financial binary black holes at the epicenter of the meltdown.  They set the standard for AAA paper that included, at the very end, "No Income, No Asset" loans.



Thomas Palley: Don't blame Fannie and Freddie

This tried and tested conservative tactic is already surfacing in the debate surrounding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant mortgage financing companies. The conservative argument is government's provision of an implicit guarantee to Fannie and Freddie distorted the market by giving them subsidised finance. The implication is that this enabled them to pump up the housing bubble, while simultaneously making them the dominant players in the securitised mortgage market.

The conservative view makes Fannie and Freddie the fall guys for the bubble's financial excesses, when the true cause was failed macroeconomic policy and inadequate regulation of mortgage lending.

The insinuation that Fannie and Freddie were primary movers of the housing market excesses of 20042006 lacks even superficial merit. This is because since 2003 both Fannie and Freddie have had limited asset growth, and Fannie's assets actually fell significantly after 2003.

Moreover, the roots of the crisis lie in the sub-prime, Alt-A, and jumbo mortgage markets. That is where "no doc" and "zero down" mortgages proliferated, where loan originations exploded in volume, where losses started, and where the bulk of losses have been so far. Yet, Fannie and Freddie are prevented from financing such mortgage products by their charters.

These facts should make clear that Fannie and Freddie did not cause the crisis. Instead, it was driven by loose and negligent lending by banks and Wall Street. That behaviour was due to lack of regulatory oversight, combined with a failed incentive system that rewards management and mortgage brokers for pushing loans rather than prudent lending.


----------



## GoneBezerk

You live your life through op-eds full of lies and half-truths twisting the truth.



Bfgrn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fannie and Freddie are the financial binary black holes at the epicenter of the meltdown.  They set the standard for AAA paper that included, at the very end, "No Income, No Asset" loans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Palley: Don't blame Fannie and Freddie
> 
> This tried and tested conservative tactic is already surfacing in the debate surrounding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant mortgage financing companies. The conservative argument is government's provision of an implicit guarantee to Fannie and Freddie distorted the market by giving them subsidised finance. The implication is that this enabled them to pump up the housing bubble, while simultaneously making them the dominant players in the securitised mortgage market.
> 
> The conservative view makes Fannie and Freddie the fall guys for the bubble's financial excesses, when the true cause was failed macroeconomic policy and inadequate regulation of mortgage lending.
> 
> The insinuation that Fannie and Freddie were primary movers of the housing market excesses of 20042006 lacks even superficial merit. This is because since 2003 both Fannie and Freddie have had limited asset growth, and Fannie's assets actually fell significantly after 2003.
> 
> Moreover, the roots of the crisis lie in the sub-prime, Alt-A, and jumbo mortgage markets. That is where "no doc" and "zero down" mortgages proliferated, where loan originations exploded in volume, where losses started, and where the bulk of losses have been so far. Yet, Fannie and Freddie are prevented from financing such mortgage products by their charters.
> 
> These facts should make clear that Fannie and Freddie did not cause the crisis. Instead, it was driven by loose and negligent lending by banks and Wall Street. That behaviour was due to lack of regulatory oversight, combined with a failed incentive system that rewards management and mortgage brokers for pushing loans rather than prudent lending.
Click to expand...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fannie and Freddie are the financial binary black holes at the epicenter of the meltdown.  They set the standard for AAA paper that included, at the very end, "No Income, No Asset" loans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Palley: Don't blame Fannie and Freddie
> 
> This tried and tested conservative tactic is already surfacing in the debate surrounding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant mortgage financing companies. The conservative argument is government's provision of an implicit guarantee to Fannie and Freddie distorted the market by giving them subsidised finance. The implication is that this enabled them to pump up the housing bubble, while simultaneously making them the dominant players in the securitised mortgage market.
> 
> The conservative view makes Fannie and Freddie the fall guys for the bubble's financial excesses, when the true cause was failed macroeconomic policy and inadequate regulation of mortgage lending.
> 
> The insinuation that Fannie and Freddie were primary movers of the housing market excesses of 20042006 lacks even superficial merit. This is because since 2003 both Fannie and Freddie have had limited asset growth, and Fannie's assets actually fell significantly after 2003.
> 
> Moreover, the roots of the crisis lie in the sub-prime, Alt-A, and jumbo mortgage markets. That is where "no doc" and "zero down" mortgages proliferated, where loan originations exploded in volume, where losses started, and where the bulk of losses have been so far. Yet, Fannie and Freddie are prevented from financing such mortgage products by their charters.
> 
> These facts should make clear that Fannie and Freddie did not cause the crisis. Instead, it was driven by loose and negligent lending by banks and Wall Street. That behaviour was due to lack of regulatory oversight, combined with a failed incentive system that rewards management and mortgage brokers for pushing loans rather than prudent lending.
Click to expand...


Tom Palley is just wrong.  F/F stopped accepting NINA loans in 2008 after the collapse.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bfgrn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fannie and Freddie are the financial binary black holes at the epicenter of the meltdown.  They set the standard for AAA paper that included, at the very end, "No Income, No Asset" loans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Palley: Don't blame Fannie and Freddie
> 
> This tried and tested conservative tactic is already surfacing in the debate surrounding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant mortgage financing companies. The conservative argument is government's provision of an implicit guarantee to Fannie and Freddie distorted the market by giving them subsidised finance. The implication is that this enabled them to pump up the housing bubble, while simultaneously making them the dominant players in the securitised mortgage market.
> 
> The conservative view makes Fannie and Freddie the fall guys for the bubble's financial excesses, when the true cause was failed macroeconomic policy and inadequate regulation of mortgage lending.
> 
> The insinuation that Fannie and Freddie were primary movers of the housing market excesses of 20042006 lacks even superficial merit. This is because since 2003 both Fannie and Freddie have had limited asset growth, and Fannie's assets actually fell significantly after 2003.
> 
> Moreover, the roots of the crisis lie in the sub-prime, Alt-A, and jumbo mortgage markets. That is where "no doc" and "zero down" mortgages proliferated, where loan originations exploded in volume, where losses started, and where the bulk of losses have been so far. Yet, Fannie and Freddie are prevented from financing such mortgage products by their charters.
> 
> These facts should make clear that Fannie and Freddie did not cause the crisis. Instead, it was driven by loose and negligent lending by banks and Wall Street. That behaviour was due to lack of regulatory oversight, combined with a failed incentive system that rewards management and mortgage brokers for pushing loans rather than prudent lending.
Click to expand...


There were many causes to the crash in 2008 and trying to make Fredy Mac and Sally Mae look innocent by focusing on problems elsewhere is a cheap sleight of hand.

Those agencies had a responsibility to not buy all those mortgages from the banks that were making them, but they did not. This fueled alot of the madness as banks knew they could make absurd loans and then simply sell it off to FM&FM.

What magnified the disaster ten fold was the naked credit default swaps that allowed people to place bets on the housing industry and various other players going bankrupt.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bfgrn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats pretty much true except now it is the Democrats that represent the most wealthy and they use government regs, racism, political cronyism and organized crime to keep the Middle Class down, parasitically feeding off its ability to produce wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, and I have no problem with most of that, but Nixon pushed it beyond LBJs intent and I suspect it was a Nixonian ploy to spoil the very thought of such programs in the minds of most Americans.
> 
> What JFK said and believed is presented here:
> *My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
> 
> Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men.
> 
> Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
> 
> Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.
> 
> A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.
> 
> The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.
> 
> Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.
> 
> A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is not likely to have what it takes to make a living. Today's military rejects include tomorrow's hard-core unemployed.
> 
> The best road to progress is freedom's road.
> 
> Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom.
> 
> I look forward to a great future for America - a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose.
> 
> The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.
> 
> Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.
> 
> It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war.*
> 
> That kind of talking would get you banned from the Democratic Party and a rent-a-mob outside your office courtesy of Soros and his hired guns in a heart beat. Soros owns the Democratic Party and JFK would not have shared it with him for a second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what I thought; you just be trollin.
> 
> 
> 
> Government take over of businesses and shafting their shareholders, and taking over entire industries is socialism. It isnt the most extreme form of socialism but it is socialism and extreme for the American public's tastes.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. They did not ban assault weapons at all. They banned scarey looking weapons that made them wet their panties.
> 
> 
> 
> Marketism = social Darwinism = fascism = communism?
> 
> Dude, find your meds, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as good old Harry S., I will let him speak for himself:
> 
> "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
> President Harry S. Truman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was true then and some of it is true now.
> 
> Today though it is the Dems that promise racial equality while meaning all races are equally poor and enslaved to the government.
> 
> The Dems say that they want to grow jobs and build industry but just cant seem to find the time as they grow government and build a monolythic state.
> 
> The Dems say they are for democracy but only as long as they can steal votes and engage in other kinds of fraud and to stop them is racist.
> 
> The Dems say that they are for freedom then jail people for thought crimes and cannot find anything wrong with Chavez.
> 
> The Republicans are scarey, true, but the Democrats are worse than the Black Plague.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have built quite a straw man, but it is not based on liberal beliefs or intent. It is built on right wing projection and yes, POLARIZED thinking. It exposes the core of conservatism...FEAR, paranoia and insecurity.
> 
> I have to laugh at your attempt to define JFK's beliefs using out of context sentences. I have read or listened to almost every one of the speeches those sentences were taken from. And I know the context and message of those speeches. You really need to educate yourself before you try to discuss who Jack Kennedy was or wasn't with me.
> 
> *"I look forward to a great future for America - a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose"*
> 
> Let's add context to one of those sentences, because it is one of my favorite JFK speeches and it revealed to me why Jack Kennedy was not just a man of his time, but a man for all time. If you know Jack Kennedy's life story, you would know that much of his wisdom came from also being "one acquainted with the night."
> 
> Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future. Although Amherst has been in the forefront of extending aid to needy and talented students, private colleges, taken as a whole, draw 50 percent of their students from the wealthiest 10 percent of our Nation. And even State universities and other public institutions derive 25 percent of their students from this group. In March 1962, persons of 18 years or older who had not completed high school made up 46 percent of the total labor force, and such persons comprised 64 percent of those who were unemployed. And in 1958, the lowest fifth of the families in the United States had 4 1/2 percent of the total personal income, the highest fifth, 44 1/2 percent. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible.
> 
> The problems which this country now faces are staggering, both at home and abroad. We need the service, in the great sense, of every educated man or woman to find 10 million jobs in the next 2 1/2 years, to govern our relations--a country which lived in isolation for 150 years, and is now suddenly the leader of the free world--to govern our relations with over 100 countries, to govern those relations with success so that the balance of power remains strong on the side of freedom, to make it possible for Americans of all different races and creeds to live together in harmony, to make it possible for a world to exist in diversity and freedom. All this requires the best of all of us.
> 
> Therefore, I am proud to come to this college, whose graduates have recognized this obligation and to say to those who are now here that the need is endless, and I am confident that you will respond.
> 
> Robert Frost said:
> 
> Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
> I took the one less traveled by,
> And that has made all the difference.
> 
> I hope that road will not be the less traveled by, and I hope your commitment to the Great Republic's interest in the years to come will be worthy of your long inheritance since your beginning.
> 
> This day devoted to the memory of Robert Frost offers an opportunity for reflection which is prized by politicians as well as by others, and even by poets, for Robert Frost was one of the granite figures of our time in America. He was supremely two things: an artist and an American. A nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces but also by the men it honors, the men it remembers.
> 
> In America, our heroes have customarily run to men of large accomplishments. But today this college and country honors a man whose contribution was not to our size but to our spirit, not to our political beliefs but to our insight, not to our self-esteem, but to our self- comprehension. In honoring Robert Frost, we therefore can pay honor to the deepest sources of our national strength. That strength takes many forms, and the most obvious forms are not always the most significant. The men who create power make an indispensable contribution to the Nation's greatness, but the men who question power make a contribution just as indispensable, especially when that questioning is disinterested, for they determine whether we use power or power uses us.
> 
> Our national strength matters, but the spirit which informs and controls our strength matters just as much. This was the special significance of Robert Frost. He brought an unsparing instinct for reality to bear on the platitudes and pieties of society. His sense of the human tragedy fortified him against self-deception and easy consolation. "I have been" he wrote, "one acquainted with the night." And because he knew the midnight as well as the high noon, because he understood the ordeal as well as the triumph of the human spirit, he gave his age strength with which to overcome despair. At bottom, he held a deep faith in the spirit of man, and it is hardly an accident that Robert Frost coupled poetry and power, for he saw poetry as the means of saving power from itself. When power leads men towards arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the areas of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses. For art establishes the basic human truth which must serve as the touchstone of our judgment.
> 
> The artist, however faithful to his personal vision of reality, becomes the last champion of the individual mind and sensibility against an intrusive society and an officious state. The great artist is thus a solitary figure. He has, as Frost said, a lover's quarrel with the world. In pursuing his perceptions of reality, he must often sail against the currents of his time. This is not a popular role. If Robert Frost was much honored in his lifetime, it was because a good many preferred to ignore his darker truths. Yet in retrospect, we see how the artist's fidelity has strengthened the fibre of our national life.
> 
> If sometimes our great artist have been the most critical of our society, it is because their sensitivity and their concern for justice, which must motivate any true artist, makes him aware that our Nation falls short of its highest potential. I see little of more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist.
> 
> If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him. We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth. And as Mr. MacLeish once remarked of poets, there is nothing worse for our trade than to be in style. In free society art is not a weapon and it does not belong to the spheres of polemic and ideology. Artists are not engineers of the soul. It may be different elsewhere. But democratic society--in it, the highest duty of the writer, the composer, the artist is to remain true to himself and to let the chips fall where they may. In serving his vision of the truth, the artist best serves his nation. And the nation which disdains the mission of art invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."
> 
> I look forward to a great future for America, a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose. I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, which will protect the beauty of our natural environment, which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past, and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future.
> 
> I look forward to an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward achievement in business or statecraft. I look forward to an America which will steadily raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and which will steadily enlarge cultural opportunities for all of our citizens. And I look forward to an America which commands respect throughout the world not only for its strength but for its civilization as well. And I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction.
> 
> Robert Frost was often skeptical about projects for human improvement, yet I do not think he would disdain this hope. As he wrote during the uncertain days of the Second War:
> 
> Take human nature altogether since time
> began . . .
> And it must be a little more in favor of
> man,
> Say a fraction of one percent at the very
> least . . .
> Our hold on this planet wouldn't have so
> increased."
> 
> 
> more...
> 
> The President and the Poet - John F. Kennedy at Amherst, October 26, 1963
Click to expand...


Nothing in that speech contradicts what I have stated, and no, the Dems would not let JFK remain in the party even if he still would want to. Most populist Democrats left the party after McGovern's leftwing fascists took over the party and turned it over to the neoMarxist left. They turned everyday Americans into the villains of all our problems, and promoted government policies that have driven the Middle Class into decline. Why? Because the leaders of the Democratic Party are some of the richest multi-billionares in the world from Soros to Bill Gates to Warren Buffet.

The GOP is the party of the middle class now, and all your bullshit doesnt change that one iota.


----------



## Sactowndog

OODA_Loop said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to make ignorant statements, you need to tell us what 'over-regulations' removed these 'risks'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing derivatives to be traded on mortgages that had high risk profiles by virtue of .gov regulation requiring they be issued to customers who weren't eligible on their own numbers.
Click to expand...


What government regulation of derivatives are you referring to?  Everything I read was we had no regulation of derivatives.  The problem with the mortgage backed securities was people thought if you piled together a bunch of crap you would have fertilizer.  Diversification did nothing to eliminate risk.  The smart people knew it and we're betting against them even as their sales force sold them to greater fools.


----------



## thanatos144

You dont hate the retard you just hate that they have to suffer under the retardation....


----------



## kaz

I don't hate Liberals for thinking they can run my life better then I can.   I hate them for trying to do it.  All the rest of you can cay you don't hate liberals, but I hate anyone who uses guns and force to coerce me, and that's exactly what the left are doing.


----------



## Too Tall

loinboy said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well for starters, they call republicans racist if they disagree with obama.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true.  We call certain people racists who:
> 
> criticize the President less than 10 days after his inaugaration before he's even had a chance to do anything to be criticized for.
> make up baseless accusations just to criticize him.
> hold up racist signs at pep rallys.
> say that we need to bring back Jim Crow laws like Tom Tancredo said at a town hall.
> people who say he has a "deep seated hatred for white people".
> people who claim "he's not one of us"; "he's a muslim"; "he's not from here"; "he pals around with terrorists"'
> people who sing songs like "Barack the magic negro"
> And people who simply refuse to respect the Office of the Presidency, no matter what he does.
> 
> Those are the people we call racist.
Click to expand...


I have the utmost respect for the Office of the Presidency but that does not prevent me from criticizing the man that occupies that Office.


----------



## Too Tall

Saigon said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I like least about liberalism:
> 
> political correctness, which includes the "you are racist I'm not" philosophy. that includes xenophobia and homophobia.
> hard core atheists
> gotcha politics
> social re-engineering
> lack of fiscal reasponsibility
> 
> What I like least about conservatives:
> 
> if you disagree you are not patriotic
> hard core evangelicals
> not wanting to cut back on the military spending
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for posting some details!
> 
> I'm puzzled you blame liberals for homophobia, and I'm not sure about fiscal responsiblity either.
> 
> It seems to me neither US party hs shown any fiscal responsibility since the 1950s.
> 
> Aithiesm and social re-engineering are valid points, sure.
Click to expand...


The Republican controlled House, where all spending bills originate, dragged Bill Clinton, kicking and screaming, to a pseudo balanced budget for three years in the '90's. I call that fiscal responsibility.  The dot com bubble busted, Newt Gingrich got kicked out of the House, 9-11 happened and that was the end of that.


----------



## Too Tall

Fordsflylow said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> plt42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you a hint. No budget in almost four years. The ones offered by Obama were shot down unanimously. And that is just a taste of this administrations failure in the fiscal/economic realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, his budget was not even brought to the floor of the boner led house for debate let alone a vote, it was filibustered just like most everything else he's done.
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as a filibuster in the house, and Obama's budgets have been voted on in the House and the Senate several times. So far he hasn't been able to get a single Democrat Senator or Representative to vote for it and, the Republicans have to force a vote on it.

And the Speaker of the House spells his name Boehner.


> Another day, another congressional shutout of O&#8217;s latest unserious gimmick. That makes three in the past year. The Senate torpedoed his last budget 97-0 in May 2011, then the House dropped a goose egg on him in March with a robust 414-0 tally. Now this.
> 
> 610-0:
> 
> Republicans forced the vote by offering the president&#8217;s plan on the Senate floor.
> 
> Democrats disputed that it was actually the president&#8217;s plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn&#8217;t actually match Mr. Obama&#8217;s budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president&#8217;s numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.
> 
> Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them &#8212; a challenge no Democrats took up&#8230;


99-0: Senate votes down Obama&#8217;s budget unanimously &#8212; again; Update: Zero Dem votes for four GOP budgets « Hot Air


----------



## Sactowndog

kaz said:


> I don't hate Liberals for thinking they can run my life better then I can.   I hate them for trying to do it.  All the rest of you can cay you don't hate liberals, but I hate anyone who uses guns and force to coerce me, and that's exactly what the left are doing.



Come on Kaz, the Republicans are no better in this regard.  God forbid your a pregnant women or a gay or a Muslim then they are much worse.  I get it what you mean to say is you want people to not tell you what to do unless they are different from you in some way then it is perfectly okay for the government to dictate to them


----------



## thanatos144

Sactowndog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate Liberals for thinking they can run my life better then I can.   I hate them for trying to do it.  All the rest of you can cay you don't hate liberals, but I hate anyone who uses guns and force to coerce me, and that's exactly what the left are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Kaz, the Republicans are no better in this regard.  God forbid your a pregnant women or a gay then they are much worse.
Click to expand...


Other then wishing for you not to kill your baby your full of shit.


----------



## kaz

Sactowndog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate Liberals for thinking they can run my life better then I can.   I hate them for trying to do it.  All the rest of you can cay you don't hate liberals, but I hate anyone who uses guns and force to coerce me, and that's exactly what the left are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Kaz, the Republicans are no better in this regard.  God forbid your a pregnant women or a gay then they are much worse.
Click to expand...


Actually from a philosophical point, you could argue the oppression of social conservatives are worse then liberals because while liberals want to own your wallet, social conservatives want to own your body.

However, first, as the tea party has once again shown, social conservatives are not the Republican party, they are a sect of it.  Fiscal conservatism woke and re-energized the party, not abortion.

And second, morality laws are harder to implement, easier to ignore and easier to overturn.  The affect of liberals eliminating economic freedom has a far, far greater impact on our actual liberty.

I'm not a philosophical libertarian, I'm a pragmatic one.  I support that policy which maximizes liberty.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper

I don't HATE liberals.  I simply shake my head when time after time, anyone with any intelligence can see that they are and always have been on the losing side of history.  Additionally, I have no doubt in my mind that liberalism is directly opposed to freedom.  The fact is that if you have a different opinion than a liberal, then you are immediately branded as a racist, a homophobe, or some other label, all in an attempt to silence your opposing view point.  It is the liberal and 'progressives' who do not have the ability to entertain opposing ideas.

I just got back from a week in Seattle, Washington.  A liberal bastion of goodness and everything right for the left.  Naturally, they have a massive budget short fall at the city and state level.  There's three tent cities for homeless people that they are raising taxes to provide food for even though they can't meet their current obligations.  Thousands of dollars for port-a-potties.  Oh, and of course they are also providing alcohol for the alcoholics.  Question from a reader in the paper:  Why are there so many homeless/addicted people from out-of-state moving here?  The neighborhoods that these tent cities are in are a complete mess with the crime, the trash and everything that goes along with it.  The neighborhoods that these tent cities are located in are 'asking' other neighborhoods to do "their part."  The county roads are a disaster and they are trying to raise taxes for that as well.  Until they do raise taxes, there's no fix in sight.  Their answer:  Well, let's legalize marijuana and tax it.  Naturally... and all the evils that the lottery was supposed to fix... and the casinos?  Over 9% unemployment at the state level.  In Seattle it's the same even though Boeing increased domestic airline orders by over 40%.  So where's the jobs?  Boeing is chomping at the bit to go to South Carolina (right to work state).  

My little state of Oklahoma?  4.8% unemployment, open-carry goes into effect on November 1st and the crime rates are going down as we speak.  The state has a 600 million dollar rainy-day fund.  The teachers are really pissed because we rank 48th in spending for students.  Course, the question had to be asked:  Since when does dollars spent per pupil equal increase in education results?  The teachers unions are squealing like stuck pigs because of the undeniable logic.  But when you've got no answer all you can do is squeal??  Our governor and the governor of Texas approved the southern leg of the Cushing - Gulf pipeline and welders are like gold at the moment.  If you've done pipeline work before, you can write your own ticket.  We're looking into doing away with state income taxes (God the Democrats are screaming because of it).  

Like Seattle is the Liberal 'nirvana', Oklahoma is the REDDEST state in the union.  I was never so glad to get back here in my life.  Hate liberals?  No, they really are very funny people...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

loinboy said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typo fixed.
> 
> Thank you for making my point
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make your point.  I'm not aware of the incident you were referring too and was asking you for some more information. It had nothing to do with not being "instructed" by anyone.  Since I still don't know what issue you're talking about, I can't be "defensive towards my collective", now can I.  Nor can I speak out against something I'm not aware of, so the "silence" is obviously true (to a point).
> 
> Now, if you told me WTF you were talking about, I might be able to speak out then.  I'm not going to comment on something I know nothing about.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember you are (or were) a cop. And that's pretty hard to believe, seeing how flawed your logic is.  My experience with cops has shown me they're pretty good analytical thinkers.  You, on the other hand, are like:
> 
> an NBA player 5' tall
> a marriage counsular who's never had a date
> a CPA who's declared bankruptcy
> You don't seem to have the chops for the job.
Click to expand...



I'm not a cop. Never was, never claimed to be. 

You have no idea who Brian Terry is? You have no idea that AG Eric Holder is stonewalling an investigation into the Administration role in arming the most violent criminals on the planet, the very people who murdered Terry, with the weapons provided by Obama and Holder. That speaks volumes about your opinion, doesn't it?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Sactowndog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate Liberals for thinking they can run my life better then I can.   I hate them for trying to do it.  All the rest of you can cay you don't hate liberals, but I hate anyone who uses guns and force to coerce me, and that's exactly what the left are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Kaz, the Republicans are no better in this regard.  God forbid your a pregnant women or a gay or a Muslim then they are much worse.  I get it what you mean to say is you want people to not tell you what to do unless they are different from you in some way then it is perfectly okay for the government to dictate to them
Click to expand...


True, particularly given the fact liberals arent trying to run anyones life.  

Indeed, as you note, its conservatives who for the most part who demand conformity and discourage dissent, they work to undermine privacy rights and expand the governments authority at the expense of individual liberty, and they seek to deny citizens equal access to the law, in violation of the 14th Amendment; they exhibit ignorance and contempt for the Constitution and its case law overall. 

Its therefore understandable why conservatives hate liberals, as liberals act in accordance with the Constitution, and against conservative special interests and efforts to aggrandize power.


----------



## HUGGY

*Why do people(CONZ) hate Liberals?*

Conz believe a lot of things not based in fact.


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with trust.  Businesses are going to maximize profits as they are suppose to do.  They are regulated by supply and demand "if" their is a well functioning market.   But those markets don't always occur because they have some built in assumptions:
> 
> 1) It assumes that people can or will walk away as the price rises
> 
> 2) it assumes people have information about what they are buying
> 
> 3) and it assumes a linkage between cost and benefit
> 
> Almost all of these things are missing in health care.  The most important being an unwillingness to let people drop out of the market.  That means companies will do what they do when you have a nearly vertical demand line and maximize profits.  That is why our per capita health care costs are 1.8 times the next closest country.
> 
> This is not political theory and whether I trust or don't trust companies.  It is straight economics.  Nor do I believe in limited choice which would be a single provider.  Read what I wrote,  a single payer yes but not a single provider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you realize that what hinders a "well functioning market" the most is government regulaton?
> 
> I believe there must be some regulation, but unfortunately our "leaders" (regardless of party) have decided that as much regulation as they can get away with is best.  It is all about control and those so called leaders are out for control.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no 'well functioning market' without regulations. Just as there is no 'society' without laws.
> 
> Do you understand why our economy crashed and burned in 2008 Immie?
Click to expand...


Yes, Democrats began the campaign with "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!  THE SKY IS F**KING FALLING!"  and too many fools believed them.  Then they couldn't pull us out of the dive they put us into.

The economy was bound to correct itself as they all do... and should.

But the idiots that ran the scare tactics from the Democratic Party scared the hell out of people and sent the economy into a tailspin.  Then they nominated Barack Obama and let him tell corporations to go F**k themselves.  This economy won't recover as long as we have Democrats who think small business is the devil's spawn.

As I said, regulation is necessary, but there is such a thing as over regulation.

Immie


----------



## American_Jihad

*Progressive Cognitive Disorder *

DIAGNOSIS. 
PCD is diagnosed by the presence of three or more of the following symptoms: 

utopian thinking - A delusional belief that the patient knows simple, side effect free solutions to all social problems. In some cases this is associated with psychotic delusions of grandeur. 

anthroplastic ideas - a delusion that behavioral conditioning, performed by the government, will cure all behavioral and social problems, ie, will change all non-PCD people into PCD . Implicit in this delusional system is the idea that people can be "programmed" to be "perfect." 
This symptom leads to a reflexive, vehement resistance by the patient to even the idea that people may have immalleable characteristics. The worst known example is that of Pol Pot, who attempted to remove all undesirable influences in the belief that the perfect socialist man would then emerge. 


antitheistic rebellion - an emotional antagonism against Christianity... probably caused by an abnormal persistence of adolescent rebellion... may also be related to the need to avoid counterarguments to desired policies (see utopiate thinking, above). This ranges from a mere antagonism to Christianity to a hatred of religions of all forms. Generally the more "western" a religion is, the more it is hated. Thus these patients may accept primitive and animalist belief systems. 

naturist delusion - a sincere belief that mankind is evil and nature is benign. The incidence of this symptom is inversely related to the practical experience that the patient has with nature. Self hatred is a feature in this area. Typical thinking includes a belief that mankind is a cancer on earth, and that earth (viewed as a feeling being) will retaliate with a deadly virus. 
The utopian view of nature is remarkable in that most patients are also believers in evolution, which has resulted in vast amounts of suffering and cruelty in the natural arena. 


environmental spasm - the patient experiences episodes of manic activity on behalf of "the environment." The delusional nature of this is evidenced by the misanthropic attacks on all works of man, and also by the focus on visible or totemic objects... for example, the Mount Graham Red Squirrel or the Spotted Owl. 
An example of the paradoxical nature of these delusions is given by the Red Squirrel and the Santa Barbara Sand Fly. The Squirrel, a subspecies of the very common Red Squirrel, is fought for aggressively, while the Sand Fly, equally at risk and a truly distinct species, inspires little passion. 

The patient usually is obsessed only with cute or cuddly animals, which is probably a displacement of the nurturing urge, itself unfulfilled due to abortion. 


control obsession - this is the tendency of the patient to strive for excessive control over others, through government action. This is probably a projection of an unconscious fear of losing control over ones' self, even though the conscious manifestation is viewed as "compassion." 

racist/feminist hypocrisy - the patient passionately advocates discrimination based on sex or race, while loudly proclaiming opposition to policies which are "racist" or "sexist." 

overemotional perceptions - the patient is far more concerned with how a social action "looks" or "feels," and resists or denies objective evidence to the contrary, This also leads to very superficial cognition about matters of significant impact, as the patient merely gets the "feel" of the issue rather than truly understanding it. 

sexual dysfunction - the patient is highly anxious about sexual matters, and this is manifested as: 
Obsession with sexual and gender roles. 

Passionate embrace of most non-traditional sexual preferences. 

A need to define individuals by their gender or sexual preference, and make social policy as if everyone were equally obsessed. 

A need to constantly push the envelope of indecent art. 
Like other disorders such as alcoholism, most suffering is experienced by those who have to live with the afflicted. Secondary suffering is incurred by a society which must live with the effects of the delusions of the afflicted. 


TREATMENT


----------



## francoHFW

Democrats caused the Depression LOL?

"People don't hate liberals"- brainwashed hater dupes do.. People who have only Pubcrappe and hate behind them can't carry on a civil discussion. Pub dupes!!


----------



## kaz

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> True, particularly given the fact liberals arent trying to run anyones life


----------



## HomeInspect

_"an NBA player 5' tall 
a marriage counsular who's never had a date 
a CPA who's declared bankruptcy 
You don't seem to have the chops for the job."_

How about adding:
A president who has never had a real job
or
A president who has never been the leader of anything
or
A president who has never run a snowball stand, let alone a business


----------



## JimBowie1958

kaz said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate Liberals for thinking they can run my life better then I can.   I hate them for trying to do it.  All the rest of you can cay you don't hate liberals, but I hate anyone who uses guns and force to coerce me, and that's exactly what the left are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Kaz, the Republicans are no better in this regard.  God forbid your a pregnant women or a gay then they are much worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually from a philosophical point, you could argue the oppression of social conservatives are worse then liberals because while liberals want to own your wallet, social conservatives want to own your body.
> 
> However, first, as the tea party has once again shown, social conservatives are not the Republican party, they are a sect of it.  Fiscal conservatism woke and re-energized the party, not abortion.
> 
> And second, morality laws are harder to implement, easier to ignore and easier to overturn.  The affect of liberals eliminating economic freedom has a far, far greater impact on our actual liberty.
> 
> I'm not a philosophical libertarian, I'm a pragmatic one.  I support that policy which maximizes liberty.
Click to expand...


About two thirds of the TPM are Teavangelicals.


----------



## Billo_Really

HomeInspect said:


> _"an NBA player 5' tall
> a marriage counsular who's never had a date
> a CPA who's declared bankruptcy
> You don't seem to have the chops for the job."_
> 
> How about adding:
> A president who has never had a real job
> or
> A president who has never been the leader of anything
> or
> A president who has never run a snowball stand, let alone a business


A coke habit doesn't give you partial credit for that last one?


----------



## Billo_Really

Too Tall said:


> I have the utmost respect for the Office of the Presidency but that does not prevent me from criticizing the man that occupies that Office.


I criticize him too, just like I did with the last President.  But when some people deliberately make things up, just to criticize him about, that's a red flag for something else going on.

Think about it for a second, what can a President, any President, do within his first 10 days in office, that is significant enough to criticize?  In contrast, it took me about a year and a half, before I started criticizing Bush policies.


----------



## Billo_Really

CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm not a cop. Never was, never claimed to be.
> 
> You have no idea who Brian Terry is? You have no idea that AG Eric Holder is stonewalling an investigation into the Administration role in arming the most violent criminals on the planet, the very people who murdered Terry, with the weapons provided by Obama and Holder. That speaks volumes about your opinion, doesn't it?


The only thing it says about my opinion, is that I don't have one on things I know nothing about. But since some of you don't even have the balls (or the common courtesy) to answer a direct question, I Googled 'Brian' a few minutes ago and am now aware of the issue you were referring to.  And I still don't have much of an opinion, since I haven't really researched it in depth.

But I can say I don't support it.  I can also say it's an improper use of my tax dollars.  I also don't see how this is any different than Iran/Contra, or worse than lying a nation into war, that has killed over 4000 American's. You don't have a halo over your head, so I wouldn't be throwing so many stones at others, in light of the things you've supported in the past.

So for now, I'll just say, we're in agreement on this issue, I don't like it either.


----------



## Bfgrn

JimBowie1958 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats pretty much true except now it is the Democrats that represent the most wealthy and they use government regs, racism, political cronyism and organized crime to keep the Middle Class down, parasitically feeding off its ability to produce wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, and I have no problem with most of that, but Nixon pushed it beyond LBJs intent and I suspect it was a Nixonian ploy to spoil the very thought of such programs in the minds of most Americans.
> 
> What JFK said and believed is presented here:
> *My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
> 
> Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men.
> 
> Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
> 
> Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.
> 
> A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.
> 
> The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.
> 
> Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.
> 
> A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is not likely to have what it takes to make a living. Today's military rejects include tomorrow's hard-core unemployed.
> 
> The best road to progress is freedom's road.
> 
> Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom.
> 
> I look forward to a great future for America - a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose.
> 
> The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.
> 
> Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.
> 
> It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war.*
> 
> That kind of talking would get you banned from the Democratic Party and a rent-a-mob outside your office courtesy of Soros and his hired guns in a heart beat. Soros owns the Democratic Party and JFK would not have shared it with him for a second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what I thought; you just be trollin.
> 
> 
> 
> Government take over of businesses and shafting their shareholders, and taking over entire industries is socialism. It isnt the most extreme form of socialism but it is socialism and extreme for the American public's tastes.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. They did not ban assault weapons at all. They banned scarey looking weapons that made them wet their panties.
> 
> 
> 
> Marketism = social Darwinism = fascism = communism?
> 
> Dude, find your meds, please.
> 
> 
> 
> That was true then and some of it is true now.
> 
> Today though it is the Dems that promise racial equality while meaning all races are equally poor and enslaved to the government.
> 
> The Dems say that they want to grow jobs and build industry but just cant seem to find the time as they grow government and build a monolythic state.
> 
> The Dems say they are for democracy but only as long as they can steal votes and engage in other kinds of fraud and to stop them is racist.
> 
> The Dems say that they are for freedom then jail people for thought crimes and cannot find anything wrong with Chavez.
> 
> The Republicans are scarey, true, but the Democrats are worse than the Black Plague.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have built quite a straw man, but it is not based on liberal beliefs or intent. It is built on right wing projection and yes, POLARIZED thinking. It exposes the core of conservatism...FEAR, paranoia and insecurity.
> 
> I have to laugh at your attempt to define JFK's beliefs using out of context sentences. I have read or listened to almost every one of the speeches those sentences were taken from. And I know the context and message of those speeches. You really need to educate yourself before you try to discuss who Jack Kennedy was or wasn't with me.
> 
> *"I look forward to a great future for America - a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose"*
> 
> Let's add context to one of those sentences, because it is one of my favorite JFK speeches and it revealed to me why Jack Kennedy was not just a man of his time, but a man for all time. If you know Jack Kennedy's life story, you would know that much of his wisdom came from also being "one acquainted with the night."
> 
> Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future. Although Amherst has been in the forefront of extending aid to needy and talented students, private colleges, taken as a whole, draw 50 percent of their students from the wealthiest 10 percent of our Nation. And even State universities and other public institutions derive 25 percent of their students from this group. In March 1962, persons of 18 years or older who had not completed high school made up 46 percent of the total labor force, and such persons comprised 64 percent of those who were unemployed. And in 1958, the lowest fifth of the families in the United States had 4 1/2 percent of the total personal income, the highest fifth, 44 1/2 percent. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible.
> 
> The problems which this country now faces are staggering, both at home and abroad. We need the service, in the great sense, of every educated man or woman to find 10 million jobs in the next 2 1/2 years, to govern our relations--a country which lived in isolation for 150 years, and is now suddenly the leader of the free world--to govern our relations with over 100 countries, to govern those relations with success so that the balance of power remains strong on the side of freedom, to make it possible for Americans of all different races and creeds to live together in harmony, to make it possible for a world to exist in diversity and freedom. All this requires the best of all of us.
> 
> Therefore, I am proud to come to this college, whose graduates have recognized this obligation and to say to those who are now here that the need is endless, and I am confident that you will respond.
> 
> Robert Frost said:
> 
> Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
> I took the one less traveled by,
> And that has made all the difference.
> 
> I hope that road will not be the less traveled by, and I hope your commitment to the Great Republic's interest in the years to come will be worthy of your long inheritance since your beginning.
> 
> This day devoted to the memory of Robert Frost offers an opportunity for reflection which is prized by politicians as well as by others, and even by poets, for Robert Frost was one of the granite figures of our time in America. He was supremely two things: an artist and an American. A nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces but also by the men it honors, the men it remembers.
> 
> In America, our heroes have customarily run to men of large accomplishments. But today this college and country honors a man whose contribution was not to our size but to our spirit, not to our political beliefs but to our insight, not to our self-esteem, but to our self- comprehension. In honoring Robert Frost, we therefore can pay honor to the deepest sources of our national strength. That strength takes many forms, and the most obvious forms are not always the most significant. The men who create power make an indispensable contribution to the Nation's greatness, but the men who question power make a contribution just as indispensable, especially when that questioning is disinterested, for they determine whether we use power or power uses us.
> 
> Our national strength matters, but the spirit which informs and controls our strength matters just as much. This was the special significance of Robert Frost. He brought an unsparing instinct for reality to bear on the platitudes and pieties of society. His sense of the human tragedy fortified him against self-deception and easy consolation. "I have been" he wrote, "one acquainted with the night." And because he knew the midnight as well as the high noon, because he understood the ordeal as well as the triumph of the human spirit, he gave his age strength with which to overcome despair. At bottom, he held a deep faith in the spirit of man, and it is hardly an accident that Robert Frost coupled poetry and power, for he saw poetry as the means of saving power from itself. When power leads men towards arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the areas of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses. For art establishes the basic human truth which must serve as the touchstone of our judgment.
> 
> The artist, however faithful to his personal vision of reality, becomes the last champion of the individual mind and sensibility against an intrusive society and an officious state. The great artist is thus a solitary figure. He has, as Frost said, a lover's quarrel with the world. In pursuing his perceptions of reality, he must often sail against the currents of his time. This is not a popular role. If Robert Frost was much honored in his lifetime, it was because a good many preferred to ignore his darker truths. Yet in retrospect, we see how the artist's fidelity has strengthened the fibre of our national life.
> 
> If sometimes our great artist have been the most critical of our society, it is because their sensitivity and their concern for justice, which must motivate any true artist, makes him aware that our Nation falls short of its highest potential. I see little of more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist.
> 
> If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him. We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth. And as Mr. MacLeish once remarked of poets, there is nothing worse for our trade than to be in style. In free society art is not a weapon and it does not belong to the spheres of polemic and ideology. Artists are not engineers of the soul. It may be different elsewhere. But democratic society--in it, the highest duty of the writer, the composer, the artist is to remain true to himself and to let the chips fall where they may. In serving his vision of the truth, the artist best serves his nation. And the nation which disdains the mission of art invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."
> 
> I look forward to a great future for America, a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose. I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, which will protect the beauty of our natural environment, which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past, and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future.
> 
> I look forward to an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward achievement in business or statecraft. I look forward to an America which will steadily raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and which will steadily enlarge cultural opportunities for all of our citizens. And I look forward to an America which commands respect throughout the world not only for its strength but for its civilization as well. And I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction.
> 
> Robert Frost was often skeptical about projects for human improvement, yet I do not think he would disdain this hope. As he wrote during the uncertain days of the Second War:
> 
> Take human nature altogether since time
> began . . .
> And it must be a little more in favor of
> man,
> Say a fraction of one percent at the very
> least . . .
> Our hold on this planet wouldn't have so
> increased."
> 
> 
> more...
> 
> The President and the Poet - John F. Kennedy at Amherst, October 26, 1963
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in that speech contradicts what I have stated, and no, the Dems would not let JFK remain in the party even if he still would want to. Most populist Democrats left the party after McGovern's leftwing fascists took over the party and turned it over to the neoMarxist left. They turned everyday Americans into the villains of all our problems, and promoted government policies that have driven the Middle Class into decline. Why? Because the leaders of the Democratic Party are some of the richest multi-billionares in the world from Soros to Bill Gates to Warren Buffet.
> 
> The GOP is the party of the middle class now, and all your bullshit doesnt change that one iota.
Click to expand...


WOW, you are living in some alternate universe. It is very well documented (by Goldwater Republicans no less), that the GOP has shifted so far to the right and has become so extreme, it is now the party of K-Street, Wall Street, Koch bros, John Birchers, major polluters and even the far leftist neo-cons like Richard Prince of Darkness Pearle, who took JFK's Inaugural Address out of context like you did and ignored Kennedy's call for peace.

I voted for a liberal Senator in New York...Jacob Javits, a liberal REPUBLICAN. And we had a liberal governor, Nelson Rockefeller, a liberal REPUBLICAN. Please name ONE liberal Republican today?

You are a fucking whack job...


----------



## waltky

Granny says...

... is `cause dey got a brain fulla mush...

... an' dey off in left field in La-la land.


----------



## American_Jihad

Why Liberals Prefer Dogs Over Children


----------



## oreo

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have hijacked the democrat party.  The democrat party today is not the JFK party of decades ago.  Where honorable men didn't continually blame their predecessors.  A time when Democrats of decades ago--would roll over in their graves if they witnessed the Occupy Wall Street people of today.  A party that understood the basis of this country which stood on principles of economic growth--individual opportunity--and applauded the success of the individual--because they understood that this successful person worked hard to get to where they were in life--and were contributors to our nation--not a drag on it.
> 
> *And what are we going to witness at the DNC convention. * The endorsement of Gay marriage--and pounding the drum of "who's going to pay for someone else's birth control contraceptives."
> 
> This while we're suffering from 8.3% unemployment with real unemployment standing at 11% if you count those that no longer receive unemployment benefits.  46 million Americans on food stamps today--with 1 in 5 families living beneath the poverty level.  16 trillion in red ink--with another 5 trillion in interest that is going to be added to this tab in the next decade--literally bankrupting our children and grandchildren's future.
> 
> http://anotheridea.org/images/cartoons/200910/20091021.jpg
> National debt: Washington's $5 trillion interest bill - Mar. 5, 2012
> 
> You kicked to the curb the most experienced candidate (Hillary Clinton) for an inexperienced "community organizer" (whatever that is.)   One who continually threatens our most innovative--hardest working--risk taking people in this country with higher taxes--and when he's not doing that--he insults them with--*"If you own a business--you didn't build that--someone else made that happen."*  They in return have tucked in like a turtle waiting for the threat to leave.
> 
> *COMMENT FROM A DEMOCRAT CEO:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, progress and job creation in my lifetime. A lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, 'Oh God, don't be attacking Obama.' Well, this is Obama's deal, and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America."
> 
> "The guy [Obama] keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe 'we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest or hold too much money.' We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists."
> 
> "Business is being hammered. The business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the president of the United States. Until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs."
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Steve Wynn's Anti-Obama Rant - Is He Right? - CBS News
> 
> *This is what Liberals have done to the democrat party and to this country.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "When you don't have a record to run on, you need to paint your opponent as someone people should run from"--Barack Obama
Click to expand...


----------



## Full-Auto

Please name ONE liberal Republican today?

Both senators from Maine.....

Thats two////////// Do I win>???


----------



## American_Jihad

oreo said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have hijacked the democrat party.  *The democrat party today is not the JFK party of decades ago*.  Where honorable men didn't continually blame their predecessors.  A time when Democrats of decades ago--would roll over in their graves if they witnessed the Occupy Wall Street people of today.  A party that understood the basis of this country which stood on principles of economic growth--individual opportunity--and applauded the success of the individual--because they understood that this successful person worked hard to get to where they were in life--and were contributors to our nation--not a drag on it.
> 
> *And what are we going to witness at the DNC convention. * The endorsement of Gay marriage--and pounding the drum of "who's going to pay for someone else's birth control contraceptives."
> 
> This while we're suffering from 8.3% unemployment with real unemployment standing at 11% if you count those that no longer receive unemployment benefits.  46 million Americans on food stamps today--with 1 in 5 families living beneath the poverty level.  16 trillion in red ink--with another 5 trillion in interest that is going to be added to this tab in the next decade--literally bankrupting our children and grandchildren's future.
> 
> http://anotheridea.org/images/cartoons/200910/20091021.jpg
> National debt: Washington's $5 trillion interest bill - Mar. 5, 2012
> 
> You kicked to the curb the most experienced candidate (Hillary Clinton) for an inexperienced "community organizer" (whatever that is.)   One who continually threatens our most innovative--hardest working--risk taking people in this country with higher taxes--and when he's not doing that--he insults them with--*"If you own a business--you didn't build that--someone else made that happen."*  They in return have tucked in like a turtle waiting for the threat to leave.
> 
> *COMMENT FROM A DEMOCRAT CEO:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, progress and job creation in my lifetime. A lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, 'Oh God, don't be attacking Obama.' Well, this is Obama's deal, and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America."
> 
> "The guy [Obama] keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe 'we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest or hold too much money.' We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists."
> 
> "Business is being hammered. The business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the president of the United States. Until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs."
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Steve Wynn's Anti-Obama Rant - Is He Right? - CBS News
> 
> *This is what Liberals have done to the democrat party and to this country.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "When you don't have a record to run on, you need to paint your opponent as someone people should run from"--Barack Obama
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The democrat party today is not the JFK party of decades ago"
> 
> You got that right, now they say >> What can my country do for me, where's my free stuff...
Click to expand...


----------



## oreo

American_Jihad said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have hijacked the democrat party.  *The democrat party today is not the JFK party of decades ago*.  Where honorable men didn't continually blame their predecessors.  A time when Democrats of decades ago--would roll over in their graves if they witnessed the Occupy Wall Street people of today.  A party that understood the basis of this country which stood on principles of economic growth--individual opportunity--and applauded the success of the individual--because they understood that this successful person worked hard to get to where they were in life--and were contributors to our nation--not a drag on it.
> 
> *And what are we going to witness at the DNC convention. * The endorsement of Gay marriage--and pounding the drum of "who's going to pay for someone else's birth control contraceptives."
> 
> This while we're suffering from 8.3% unemployment with real unemployment standing at 11% if you count those that no longer receive unemployment benefits.  46 million Americans on food stamps today--with 1 in 5 families living beneath the poverty level.  16 trillion in red ink--with another 5 trillion in interest that is going to be added to this tab in the next decade--literally bankrupting our children and grandchildren's future.
> 
> http://anotheridea.org/images/cartoons/200910/20091021.jpg
> National debt: Washington's $5 trillion interest bill - Mar. 5, 2012
> 
> You kicked to the curb the most experienced candidate (Hillary Clinton) for an inexperienced "community organizer" (whatever that is.)   One who continually threatens our most innovative--hardest working--risk taking people in this country with higher taxes--and when he's not doing that--he insults them with--*"If you own a business--you didn't build that--someone else made that happen."*  They in return have tucked in like a turtle waiting for the threat to leave.
> 
> *COMMENT FROM A DEMOCRAT CEO:*
> 
> 
> Steve Wynn's Anti-Obama Rant - Is He Right? - CBS News
> 
> *This is what Liberals have done to the democrat party and to this country.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "When you don't have a record to run on, you need to paint your opponent as someone people should run from"--Barack Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The democrat party today is not the JFK party of decades ago"
> 
> You got that right, now they say >> What can my country do for me, where's my free stuff...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals today--would have crucified JFK for saying that. _ That filthy RICH son-of-a-bitch had the nerve to tell me to get off my ass and do something for my country._
Click to expand...


----------



## MarcATL

loinboy said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have the utmost respect for the Office of the Presidency but that does not prevent me from criticizing the man that occupies that Office.
> 
> 
> 
> I criticize him too, just like I did with the last President.  But when some people deliberately make things up, just to criticize him about, that's a red flag for something else going on.
> 
> Think about it for a second, what can a President, any President, do within his first 10 days in office, that is significant enough to criticize?  In contrast, it took me about a year and a half, before I started criticizing Bush policies.
Click to expand...

This just goes to show that they never had anything of substance to criticize Obama on, they started off on the day of his inauguration with a secret meeting on how to break Obama. They never planned on doing anything for the country, not under Obama's watch...only to obstruct and destroy Obama. And they wonder why he's so popular as if the American people can't see through that partisan BS.

*SMH*


----------



## Sactowndog

kaz said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate Liberals for thinking they can run my life better then I can.   I hate them for trying to do it.  All the rest of you can cay you don't hate liberals, but I hate anyone who uses guns and force to coerce me, and that's exactly what the left are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Kaz, the Republicans are no better in this regard.  God forbid your a pregnant women or a gay then they are much worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually from a philosophical point, you could argue the oppression of social conservatives are worse then liberals because while liberals want to own your wallet, social conservatives want to own your body.
> 
> However, first, as the tea party has once again shown, social conservatives are not the Republican party, they are a sect of it.  Fiscal conservatism woke and re-energized the party, not abortion.
> 
> And second, morality laws are harder to implement, easier to ignore and easier to overturn.  The affect of liberals eliminating economic freedom has a far, far greater impact on our actual liberty.
> 
> I'm not a philosophical libertarian, I'm a pragmatic one.  I support that policy which maximizes liberty.
Click to expand...


Fundamentally I don't think you and I are that far apart.  I suspect if we sat down and had a beer we would reach similar conclusions.  

Major differences I see:
1) I am strongly opposed to capital gain tax reductions as I think they are counter-productive in a flat world

2) I think anyone who says they want a market based health care system either doesn't understand economics or has thought about it.  I see a market based system of healthcare everyday in animal medicine.  In that model animals die because owners chose not to spend the money.  That is what happens in a market based model.  

3) I think countries can be captured by strong native industries and it is in the countries interest, pro choice and pro liberty to fund and support research that leads to the destruction of those entrenched industries before another country does it to us.


----------



## kaz

JimBowie1958 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Kaz, the Republicans are no better in this regard.  God forbid your a pregnant women or a gay then they are much worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually from a philosophical point, you could argue the oppression of social conservatives are worse then liberals because while liberals want to own your wallet, social conservatives want to own your body.
> 
> However, first, as the tea party has once again shown, social conservatives are not the Republican party, they are a sect of it.  Fiscal conservatism woke and re-energized the party, not abortion.
> 
> And second, morality laws are harder to implement, easier to ignore and easier to overturn.  The affect of liberals eliminating economic freedom has a far, far greater impact on our actual liberty.
> 
> I'm not a philosophical libertarian, I'm a pragmatic one.  I support that policy which maximizes liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About two thirds of the TPM are Teavangelicals.
Click to expand...


Yep, social conservatives started a movement that we need to stop focusing on social issues and cut government spending.  Gotcha.

Your problem is you only have social conservative talking points from the DNC, so when you have to debate anything else, you have to declare them social conservatives or you're just lost.


----------



## kaz

Sactowndog said:


> Fundamentally I don't think you and I are that far apart.  I suspect if we sat down and had a beer we would reach similar conclusions.



I agree, I like beer too.  The rest not so much.



Sactowndog said:


> Major differences I see:
> 1) I am strongly opposed to capital gain tax reductions as I think they are counter-productive in a flat world


Capital gains are double taxation with corporate tax, high rates drive inefficient economic investing because they prevent people from moving money to more promising stocks and they are pure job killers.  And they don't raise revenue because while they raise more money from sales of stocks, the amount of sales plummet.  Other then that, you have a point.



Sactowndog said:


> 2) I think anyone who says they want a market based health care system either doesn't understand economics or has thought about it.  I see a market based system of healthcare everyday in animal medicine.  In that model animals die because owners chose not to spend the money.  That is what happens in a market based model.


Economics in medicine won't work because people won't bankrupt themselves for animals, so...  Hmm, didn't follow the rest.

Obamacare is taking an industry that was being smothering under government and fixing it by strangling them.



Sactowndog said:


> 3) I think countries can be captured by strong native industries and it is in the countries interest, pro choice and pro liberty to fund and support research that leads to the destruction of those entrenched industries before another country does it to us.



Countries do that by freeing their industry from government so they do it efficiently.  Politicians make political decisions.  Like in the military where they can't close bases, can't move bases and they get weapon systems they don't want for pure political reasons.  Sure, that's how we'll build an industrial giant in this country.  Actually the more government keeps getting involved the worse it gets.  But that's only if you believe crap like facts and data and stuff like that...


----------



## Sactowndog

kaz said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundamentally I don't think you and I are that far apart.  I suspect if we sat down and had a beer we would reach similar conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, I like beer too.  The rest not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Major differences I see:
> 1) I am strongly opposed to capital gain tax reductions as I think they are counter-productive in a flat world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital gains are double taxation with corporate tax, high rates drive inefficient economic investing because they prevent people from moving money to more promising stocks and they are pure job killers.  And they don't raise revenue because while they raise more money from sales of stocks, the amount of sales plummet.  Other then that, you have a point.
Click to expand...


Capital gains taxes are only double taxation if you have corporate income tax which in my view should be eliminated.  Corporations are not immortal people.  

The capital gains tax reductions are completely anti-libertarian because in today's world they create free loaders on the system.  The initial theory is you provide a lower tax in exchange for investment that creates jobs.  But that theory now fails in global markets where investors can and do routinely invest in one country and live in another.  With no capital gains rate the investor is free loading off the system because he isn't paying taxes and isn't generating US jobs.  It is a much better and more libertarian model to set capital gains at the income tax rate and eliminate corporate income tax.  In that model you reward investors no matter where they live.

My problem with today's Republican libertarians is the are adamately against providing the poor a free ride but are quite fine with doing so for the wealthy or corporations.


----------



## Sactowndog

kaz said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundamentally I don't think you and I are that far apart.  I suspect if we sat down and had a beer we would reach similar conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, I like beer too.  The rest not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) I think anyone who says they want a market based health care system either doesn't understand economics or has thought about it.  I see a market based system of healthcare everyday in animal medicine.  In that model animals die because owners chose not to spend the money.  That is what happens in a market based model.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Economics in medicine won't work because people won't bankrupt themselves for animals, so...  Hmm, didn't follow the rest.
> 
> Obamacare is taking an industry that was being smothering under government and fixing it by strangling them.
Click to expand...


Have you taken a Macroeconomics course?   Demand curves require people to exit the market at any given price point.  That happens in animal medicine all the time.  If fluffy's surgery is 2000 and I decide I can't or don't want to pay 2000 fluffy dies.  That is market based health care.  

We don't do that with humans which means we have a flat demand curve that doesn't move based on price for much of medicine.  As a result,  with no demand curve to constrain prices we have double digit price inflation in health care and we spend 1.8 times the next most expensive country on a per capita basis.  

Obamacare is not perfect and not the system I would chose but returning to the old model is far worse unless we are willing to stop free loading and let the who can't or won't pay exit the market via death.


----------



## Sactowndog

kaz said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundamentally I don't think you and I are that far apart.  I suspect if we sat down and had a beer we would reach similar conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, I like beer too.  The rest not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) I think countries can be captured by strong native industries and it is in the countries interest, pro choice and pro liberty to fund and support research that leads to the destruction of those entrenched industries before another country does it to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Countries do that by freeing their industry from government so they do it efficiently.  Politicians make political decisions.  Like in the military where they can't close bases, can't move bases and they get weapon systems they don't want for pure political reasons.  Sure, that's how we'll build an industrial giant in this country.  Actually the more government keeps getting involved the worse it gets.  But that's only if you believe crap like facts and data and stuff like that...
Click to expand...


Having worked in Congress and in a major fortune 500 firm if you only worry about freeing industry from government then you only fear loss of liberty on the left.  I also fear freeing government from industry which is equally a risk.  We have seen as many facist states as communist states over the years.  

Your like the vigilant soldier who only watches in one direction only to get blind sided and killed from an attack coming from the other direction.  We are no longer an Agrarian society.  If you value your liberty you had better guard against both and right now the danger from the right is far greater.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sactowndog said:


> Capital gains taxes are only double taxation if you have corporate income tax which in my view should be eliminated.


From what I understand, it depends on how you file your corporation.  

Whether you file as a Type-S corporation, or a Type-C corporation.



Sactowndog said:


> Corporations are not immortal people.


Corporations aren't people at all.  They are an entity that exists only on paper.  

I'll believe corporations are people the day Texas executes one.



Sactowndog said:


> The capital gains tax reductions are completely anti-libertarian because in today's world they create free loaders on the system.  The initial theory is you provide a lower tax in exchange for investment that creates jobs.  But that theory now fails in global markets where investors can and do routinely invest in one country and live in another.  With no capital gains rate the investor is free loading off the system because he isn't paying taxes and isn't generating US jobs.  It is a much better and more libertarian model to set capital gains at the income tax rate and eliminate corporate income tax.  In that model you reward investors no matter where they live.


Capital gains and stock dividends make up the majority of their yearly  income.  I think it's about 54%.  And it's just disgusting seeing them   pay 15% tax on that shit, when I'm stuck paying 25% on mine.



Sactowndog said:


> My problem with today's Republican libertarians is the are adamately against providing the poor a free ride but are quite fine with doing so for the wealthy or corporations.


Re-distribution of wealth is a reality.  Unfortunately, it's going up, not down.


----------



## kaz

Sactowndog said:


> The capital gains tax reductions are completely anti-libertarian





Tax cuts are "completely anti-libertarian?"  Thanks for explaining my views to me.

Hmm...I'm against a tax cut.  I'm against a tax cut.  I'm trying, but nope, I'm not getting it...

When we do eliminate the corporate tax, then we can talk about the gains rate.  But a better solution is the fair tax, which is very libertarian even if the head up their ass Libertarians are against it.


----------



## kaz

Sactowndog said:


> Having worked in Congress and in a major fortune 500 firm if you only worry about freeing industry from government then you only fear loss of liberty on the left.  I also fear freeing government from industry which is equally a risk.  We have seen as many facist states as communist states over the years



Having spent my career in GE Management (11 years) and Management Consulting (9 years)  doing strategy work for Fortune 500 companies, before going entrepreneurial and owning my own businesses (3),  only government can corrupt free markets because they are the only entity with guns and the power to implement unilateral rules and shut down competition by force.  When companies lobby government, it is still government that's corrupting the market, and your solution of the problem of companies lobbying government being to make government stronger is ... let's go with ... counterintuitive ...


----------



## kaz

loinboy said:


> it's just disgusting seeing them   pay 15% tax on that shit, when I'm stuck paying 25% on mine.



Let's see, corporate tax + 15% > 25% easily.

And is 25% your effective rate or your marginal rate?


----------



## Billo_Really

kaz said:


> Having spent my career in GE Management (11 years) and Management Consulting (9 years)  doing strategy work for Fortune 500 companies, before going entrepreneurial and owning my own businesses (3),  only government can corrupt free markets because they are the only entity with guns and the power to implement unilateral rules and shut down competition by force.  When companies lobby government, it is still government that's corrupting the market, and your solution of the problem of companies lobbying government being to make government stronger is ... let's go with ... counterintuitive ...


The problem with that is when companies _"become" _the government.  Did you know, there are more Blackwater security forces in Iraq, than there are US troops?  Are you aware of all the intelligence agencies that have sprung up since 9/11?  Or that we have privatized our prison system?  Which explains why we have more people locked up than any country in history.

It's no secret we lost manufacturing jobs overseas.  But we've also lost many that remained here.  Did you know that 100% of the manufacturing of military helmuts is done with prison labor?

The people in government are puppets for the corporate oligarchy.  Government might have the guns, but the multi-nationals tell them where to point.


----------



## Sactowndog

kaz said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The capital gains tax reductions are completely anti-libertarian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax cuts are "completely anti-libertarian?"  Thanks for explaining my views to me.
> 
> Hmm...I'm against a tax cut.  I'm against a tax cut.  I'm trying, but nope, I'm not getting it...
> 
> When we do eliminate the corporate tax, then we can talk about the gains rate.  But a better solution is the fair tax, which is very libertarian even if the head up their ass Libertarians are against it.
Click to expand...


The essence of libertarianism is being against those who generate a free ride by lobbying the government.  Providing zero capital gains tax to an investor who is investing and creating jobs in China is the definition of a free ride.  If you can't see that than you aren't a libertarian you're a right wing wealthy apologist like the rest of them.  Which is fine we have lots of them in our country.


----------



## Billo_Really

kaz said:


> Let's see, corporate tax + 15% > 25% easily.
> 
> And is 25% your effective rate or your marginal rate?


Actually, it's closer to 30%.  That's the amount of money that comes out of my paycheck that I don't get.

And I don't want to see anyone paying less than me.


----------



## kaz

loinboy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having spent my career in GE Management (11 years) and Management Consulting (9 years)  doing strategy work for Fortune 500 companies, before going entrepreneurial and owning my own businesses (3),  only government can corrupt free markets because they are the only entity with guns and the power to implement unilateral rules and shut down competition by force.  When companies lobby government, it is still government that's corrupting the market, and your solution of the problem of companies lobbying government being to make government stronger is ... let's go with ... counterintuitive ...
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is when companies _"become" _the government.  Did you know, there are more Blackwater security forces in Iraq, than there are US troops?  Are you aware of all the intelligence agencies that have sprung up since 9/11?  Or that we have privatized our prison system?  Which explains why we have more people locked up than any country in history.
> 
> It's no secret we lost manufacturing jobs overseas.  But we've also lost many that remained here.  Did you know that 100% of the manufacturing of military helmuts is done with prison labor?
> 
> The people in government are puppets for the corporate oligarchy.  Government might have the guns, but the multi-nationals tell them where to point.
Click to expand...


Ironic you lecture me with a point I addressed in the post you quoted.


----------



## kaz

Sactowndog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The capital gains tax reductions are completely anti-libertarian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax cuts are "completely anti-libertarian?"  Thanks for explaining my views to me.
> 
> Hmm...I'm against a tax cut.  I'm against a tax cut.  I'm trying, but nope, I'm not getting it...
> 
> When we do eliminate the corporate tax, then we can talk about the gains rate.  But a better solution is the fair tax, which is very libertarian even if the head up their ass Libertarians are against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The essence of libertarianism is being against those who generate a free ride by lobbying the government.  Providing zero capital gains tax to an investor who is investing and creating jobs in China is the definition of a free ride.  If you can't see that than you aren't a libertarian you're a right wing wealthy apologist like the rest of them.  Which is fine we have lots of them in our country.
Click to expand...


Again, I like being lectured by a non-libertarian about what I believe.  And with points that neither I nor any other libertarian believe.

You said:  "The essence of libertarianism is being against those who generate a free ride by lobbying the government."

Actually:  The essence of libertarianism is limiting government.  What you are describing is mutually assured destruction.  Well the dragon ate my kid, we have to feed his kid to the dragon to make it ... fair!  No, we have to slay the dragon.


----------



## Shelzin

kaz said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax cuts are "completely anti-libertarian?"  Thanks for explaining my views to me.
> 
> Hmm...I'm against a tax cut.  I'm against a tax cut.  I'm trying, but nope, I'm not getting it...
> 
> When we do eliminate the corporate tax, then we can talk about the gains rate.  But a better solution is the fair tax, which is very libertarian even if the head up their ass Libertarians are against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The essence of libertarianism is being against those who generate a free ride by lobbying the government.  Providing zero capital gains tax to an investor who is investing and creating jobs in China is the definition of a free ride.  If you can't see that than you aren't a libertarian you're a right wing wealthy apologist like the rest of them.  Which is fine we have lots of them in our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I like being lectured by a non-libertarian about what I believe.  And with points that neither I nor any other libertarian believe.
> 
> You said:  "The essence of libertarianism is being against those who generate a free ride by lobbying the government."
> 
> Actually:  The essence of libertarianism is limiting government.  What you are describing is mutually assured destruction.  Well the dragon ate my kid, we have to feed his kid to the dragon to make it ... fair!  No, we have to slay the dragon.
Click to expand...

Slay that fuck'n dragon!!!


----------



## grunt11b

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



 Because they are dumbasses who have to have their fingers in everybody's lives and pocket books.


----------



## Sactowndog

kaz said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having worked in Congress and in a major fortune 500 firm if you only worry about freeing industry from government then you only fear loss of liberty on the left.  I also fear freeing government from industry which is equally a risk.  We have seen as many facist states as communist states over the years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having spent my career in GE Management (11 years) and Management Consulting (9 years)  doing strategy work for Fortune 500 companies, before going entrepreneurial and owning my own businesses (3),  only government can corrupt free markets because they are the only entity with guns and the power to implement unilateral rules and shut down competition by force.  When companies lobby government, it is still government that's corrupting the market, and your solution of the problem of companies lobbying government being to
> make government stronger is ... let's go with ... counterintuitive ...
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should have spent more time with you K street lobbyists.  Governments are not amorphous entities they are people who can and have become owned by powerful corporations that seek to further their interests via the political process and not the market place.  

And quite frankly you have avoided addressing my points of: 

1) those who pay no capital gains tax and invest overseas are in effect freeloading on the system.  

2) that healthcare by definition is not a functioning market which US healthcare companies understand and use government influence to allow them to continually raise prices against a vertical demand curve.


----------



## kaz

Sactowndog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having worked in Congress and in a major fortune 500 firm if you only worry about freeing industry from government then you only fear loss of liberty on the left.  I also fear freeing government from industry which is equally a risk.  We have seen as many facist states as communist states over the years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having spent my career in GE Management (11 years) and Management Consulting (9 years)  doing strategy work for Fortune 500 companies, before going entrepreneurial and owning my own businesses (3),  only government can corrupt free markets because they are the only entity with guns and the power to implement unilateral rules and shut down competition by force.  When companies lobby government, it is still government that's corrupting the market, and your solution of the problem of companies lobbying government being to
> make government stronger is ... let's go with ... counterintuitive ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should have spent more time with you K street lobbyists.  Governments are not amorphous entities they are people who can and have become owned by powerful corporations that seek to further their interests via the political process and not the market place.
Click to expand...


Actually, I've repeatedly addressed this point. In red ... again ....



Sactowndog said:


> And quite frankly you have avoided addressing my points of:
> 
> 1) those who pay no capital gains tax



I've repeatedly addressed this point, capital gains tax is double taxation with the corporate tax.  I threw in I support the Fair Tax.  I double addressed it.



Sactowndog said:


> and invest overseas are in effect freeloading on the system.



How is money overseas "freeloading on the system?"  It's ... overseas.  And Democrats are butt stupid on this.  They tax the repatriation of money by up to 30% so no money gets repatriated.  When Bush dropped it to 5% for one year, the amount of tax collected dwarfed any other year even with a rate of 1/6.  Would you rather have 70% of your money working in the US or 100% of it working overseas?  Government ... is stupid ...




Sactowndog said:


> 2) that healthcare by definition is not a functioning market which US healthcare companies understand and use government influence to allow them to continually raise prices against a vertical demand curve.



See the red above.


----------



## Sactowndog

kaz said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having spent my career in GE Management (11 years) and Management Consulting (9 years)  doing strategy work for Fortune 500 companies, before going entrepreneurial and owning my own businesses (3),  only government can corrupt free markets because they are the only entity with guns and the power to implement unilateral rules and shut down competition by force.  When companies lobby government, it is still government that's corrupting the market, and your solution of the problem of companies lobbying government being to
> make government stronger is ... let's go with ... counterintuitive ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should have spent more time with you K street lobbyists.  Governments are not amorphous entities they are people who can and have become owned by powerful corporations that seek to further their interests via the political process and not the market place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I've repeatedly addressed this point. In red ... again ....
> 
> 
> 
> I've repeatedly addressed this point, capital gains tax is double taxation with the corporate tax.  I threw in I support the Fair Tax.  I double addressed it.
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> and invest overseas are in effect freeloading on the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is money overseas "freeloading on the system?"  It's ... overseas.  And Democrats are butt stupid on this.  They tax the repatriation of money by up to 30% so no money gets repatriated.  When Bush dropped it to 5% for one year, the amount of tax collected dwarfed any other year even with a rate of 1/6.  Would you rather have 70% of your money working in the US or 100% of it working overseas?  Government ... is .
Click to expand...


Clearly you are so busy responding to what you assume I believe that you ignore what I said.  Yes not repatriating profits is stupid as is the corporate income tax in general.  The corporate income tax is taxing job creators and preventing them from hiring people.  If the disingenuous Republicans were reducing or eliminating this tax I would think they truely were about jobs.

But eliminating the capital gains tax has very little to do with jobs as most wealthy investors are 2/3 invested overseas.  It only let's them generate income without paying taxes.  What's worse is it allows certain hedge funds to do more deals of the following type: buy companies via debt, off shore the employees to generate cash, and use the cash to pay off the debt.  

Given your background it wouldn't surprise me if you understood this full well and just basically don't give a darn about middle class jobs as long as you get yours.


----------



## Sactowndog

kaz said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having spent my career in GE Management (11 years) and Management Consulting (9 years)  doing strategy work for Fortune 500 companies, before going entrepreneurial and owning my own businesses (3),  only government can corrupt free markets because they are the only entity with guns and the power to implement unilateral rules and shut down competition by force.  When companies lobby government, it is still government that's corrupting the market, and your solution of the problem of companies lobbying government being to
> make government stronger is ... let's go with ... counterintuitive ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should have spent more time with you K street lobbyists.  Governments are not amorphous entities they are people who can and have become owned by powerful corporations that seek to further their interests via the political process and not the market place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I've repeatedly addressed this point. In red ... again ....
> 
> 
> 
> I've repeatedly addressed this point, capital gains tax is double taxation with the corporate tax.  I threw in I support the Fair Tax.  I double addressed it.
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> and invest overseas are in effect freeloading on the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is money overseas "freeloading on the system?"  It's ... overseas.  And Democrats are butt stupid on this.  They tax the repatriation of money by up to 30% so no money gets repatriated.  When Bush dropped it to 5% for one year, the amount of tax collected dwarfed any other year even with a rate of 1/6.  Would you rather have 70% of your money working in the US or 100% of it working overseas?  Government ... is stupid ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) that healthcare by definition is not a functioning market which US healthcare companies understand and use government influence to allow them to continually raise prices against a vertical demand curve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the red above.
Click to expand...


How is government investing in basic research making government stronger?  What I will say is we must stop allowing corporations to export government funded IP overseas and take IP we paid for and generate jobs in Korea like HP did with Memrister technology.


----------



## American_Jihad

*The Secret to the Suicidal Liberal Mind *

Jack Wheeler
Freedom Research Foundation
Monday, Jan. 21, 2002

What do Harvard president Larry Summers, Taliban John Walker, Delta Airlines officials and the editors of the New York Times have in common with Yanomamo tribeswomen in the Amazon jungle?

To answer this question is to understand the root cause of liberal "white guilt." Lakes of ink have been splashed on newspaper, magazine and journal pages ruminating and anguishing over the bottomless guilt that pervades the liberal soul. 

Paul Craig Roberts, economist and columnist, writes eloquently about the anti-white racism endemic in American universities that demonizes white males as the font of all evil. Shelby Steele of the Hoover Institute explained in the Wall Street Journal recently how white guilt empowers racist frauds such as Cornel West.

The self-loathing of the white American liberal is as well-established and documented as Einstein's Special Relativity theorems. A typical example is writer Susan Sontag's denouncement of the white race as "the cancer of human history." 

A racist hatred of one's own race  auto-racism  has become a defining characteristic of the liberal mind. Yet the source of such suicidal guilt remains a mystery.


----------



## Interpol

The people who hate liberals require an enemy. 

They're repressed people who wage "wars" on everything, from drugs to immigrants to women to gov't to unions to liberals to endless oversea stalemates like Afghanistan. 

If they were really happy people, they wouldn't have such huge hate-ons for everything in sight.


----------



## American_Jihad

Interpol said:


> The people who hate liberals require an enemy.
> 
> They're repressed people who wage "wars" on everything, from drugs to immigrants to women to gov't to unions to liberals to endless oversea stalemates like Afghanistan.
> 
> If they were really happy people, they wouldn't have such huge hate-ons for everything in sight.



You're an oxymoron, but mostly moron...


----------



## Sactowndog

American_Jihad said:


> *The Secret to the Suicidal Liberal Mind *
> 
> Jack Wheeler
> Freedom Research Foundation
> Monday, Jan. 21, 2002
> 
> What do Harvard president Larry Summers, Taliban John Walker, Delta Airlines officials and the editors of the New York Times have in common with Yanomamo tribeswomen in the Amazon jungle?
> 
> To answer this question is to understand the root cause of liberal "white guilt." Lakes of ink have been splashed on newspaper, magazine and journal pages ruminating and anguishing over the bottomless guilt that pervades the liberal soul.
> 
> Paul Craig Roberts, economist and columnist, writes eloquently about the anti-white racism endemic in American universities that demonizes white males as the font of all evil. Shelby Steele of the Hoover Institute explained in the Wall Street Journal recently how white guilt empowers racist frauds such as Cornel West.
> 
> The self-loathing of the white American liberal is as well-established and documented as Einstein's Special Relativity theorems. A typical example is writer Susan Sontag's denouncement of the white race as "the cancer of human history."
> 
> A racist hatred of one's own race &#8211; auto-racism &#8211; has become a defining characteristic of the liberal mind. Yet the source of such suicidal guilt remains a mystery.



Personally I could care less about your racist feelings or those of the 2016 movie creators.  You disgust me but all I care about is will we have jobs for your and my children.  While I think Obama's plan will do little to help the country the Republican plan will do more damage than help.  So reluctantly I am voting for Obama because the right wing can't get past being whores for the wealthy and doing nothing about jobs.


----------



## Immanuel

Interpol said:


> The people who hate liberals require an enemy.
> 
> They're repressed people who wage "wars" on everything, from drugs to immigrants to women to gov't to unions to liberals to endless oversea stalemates like Afghanistan.
> 
> If they were really happy people, they wouldn't have such huge hate-ons for everything in sight.



Honestly I would rather hate people as you suggest than behave like so many arrogant liberals who think they are better than everyone else and know what is best for everyone else.  

Immie


----------



## GuyPinestra

I've been trying to avoid this thread for DAYS, but it keeps hitting the top page so I'll venture a guess.

Because Liberals are so all-fired CERTAIN about what they 'feel', and so damned CLUELESS about what they 'know'.


----------



## Saigon

Guy - 

I don't agree with you, but I think your statement is very cleverly worded. 

I do agree that liberals tend to incorporate emotion into their politics more - but at least that means they aren't sociopathic! With issues like poverty, I think feeling something when we see very poor people suffering is probably a good thing. 

I also don't think it means one thinks less.


----------



## Bfgrn

GuyPinestra said:


> I've been trying to avoid this thread for DAYS, but it keeps hitting the top page so I'll venture a guess.
> 
> Because Liberals are so all-fired CERTAIN about what they 'feel', and so damned CLUELESS about what they 'know'.



The irony is the opposite is true. Conservativism is based purely on the most destructive and irrational emotion...FEAR. And conservatives today are totally brainwashed by a well funded elite.


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been trying to avoid this thread for DAYS, but it keeps hitting the top page so I'll venture a guess.
> 
> Because Liberals are so all-fired CERTAIN about what they 'feel', and so damned CLUELESS about what they 'know'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The irony is the opposite is true. Conservativism is based purely on the most destructive and irrational emotion...FEAR. And conservatives today are totally brainwashed by a well funded elite.
> 
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.
Click to expand...


True ?  What does that mean ?  True to you ?  Of course it would be.

Liberalism is the trust of people...that's why we need to watch those greedy companies and greedy doctors.  ROTFLMAO

Ray McGovern is who ?  And he is credible why ?

Didn't think so.


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been trying to avoid this thread for DAYS, but it keeps hitting the top page so I'll venture a guess.
> 
> Because Liberals are so all-fired CERTAIN about what they 'feel', and so damned CLUELESS about what they 'know'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The irony is the opposite is true. Conservativism is based purely on the most destructive and irrational emotion...FEAR. And conservatives today are totally brainwashed by a well funded elite.
> 
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True ?  What does that mean ?  True to you ?  Of course it would be.
> 
> Liberalism is the trust of people...that's why we need to watch those greedy companies and greedy doctors.  ROTFLMAO
> 
> Ray McGovern is who ?  And he is credible why ?
> 
> Didn't think so.
Click to expand...


We need to know what is truth and what is propaganda. It is the only way to solve our problems. Dogma just don't cut it with me. You are a messenger of dogma and propaganda.

Who is Ray McGovern? Someone we should listen to. But, he speaks bad of government...heaven forbid!

Retired CIA Agent Ray McGovern Speaking Freely on the Corruption of U.S Intelligence

Having served as a CIA analyst for 27 years, Ray McGovern speaks candidly about the creation of the Agency, the deceit that lead to the invasion of Iraq, the questionable character of George Tenet, and more. In stark frankness, McGovern examines the politicization of the Central Intelligence Agency and how it came to be an entity that serves the White House agenda, instead of one that serves up the unbiased truth. Disgusted by the lack of integrity exhibited by members of the intelligence community and U.S. government, McGovern retired and eventually co-created VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity)-an organization dedicated to exposing the mishandling of important intelligence, particularly with regard to the War on Iraq. Full of inside information you have never heard before about the way in which our nations most secretive agency operates.



There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world. 
Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Shelzin

Saigon said:


> Guy -
> 
> I don't agree with you, but I think your statement is very cleverly worded.
> 
> I do agree that liberals tend to incorporate emotion into their politics more - but at least that means they aren't sociopathic! With issues like poverty, I think feeling something when we see very poor people suffering is probably a good thing.
> 
> I also don't think it means one thinks less.


I'm a huge fan of logic myself...  The good news...  While I don't have a bleeding heart...   I do have belief in the Nash equilibrium.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Liberal propaganda*

Liberal propaganda is the use of distorted media coverage, half truths, deceit, liberal denial, and liberal bias to promote liberal political goals, such as gay marriage and the legalization of drugs- which are contrary to a pure moral nation. 

Liberal propaganda can also take the form of inspirational images designed to portray liberal politicians in a positive light. For example, in his campaign for the Presidency, Barack Hussein Obama used artistically rendered images that sought to portray him as the center of a cult of personality.[1] This is disturbingly similar to the propaganda used by atheistic communist leaders. 

Other examples include: 

---


----------



## tjvh

Interpol said:


> The people who hate liberals require an enemy.
> 
> They're repressed people who wage "wars" on everything, from drugs to immigrants to women to gov't to unions to liberals to endless oversea stalemates like Afghanistan.
> 
> If they were really happy people, they wouldn't have such huge hate-ons for everything in sight.



I hate Liberal's because *their ideology hates everything, and everyone who disagrees with them.*


----------



## tjvh

American_Jihad said:


> *Liberal propaganda*
> 
> Liberal propaganda is the use of distorted media coverage, half truths, deceit, liberal denial, and liberal bias to promote liberal political goals, such as gay marriage and the legalization of drugs- which are contrary to a pure moral nation.
> 
> Liberal propaganda can also take the form of inspirational images designed to portray liberal politicians in a positive light. For example, in his campaign for the Presidency, Barack Hussein Obama used artistically rendered images that sought to portray him as the center of a cult of personality.[1] This is disturbingly similar to the propaganda used by atheistic communist leaders.
> 
> Other examples include:
> 
> ---



Yup.


----------



## Bfgrn

tjvh said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Liberal propaganda*
> 
> Liberal propaganda is the use of distorted media coverage, half truths, deceit, liberal denial, and liberal bias to promote liberal political goals, such as gay marriage and the legalization of drugs- which are contrary to a pure moral nation.
> 
> Liberal propaganda can also take the form of inspirational images designed to portray liberal politicians in a positive light. For example, in his campaign for the Presidency, Barack Hussein Obama used artistically rendered images that sought to portray him as the center of a cult of personality.[1] This is disturbingly similar to the propaganda used by atheistic communist leaders.
> 
> Other examples include:
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.
Click to expand...


Yea...Mao agrees with you right wingers...

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism






&#38761;&#21629;&#30340;&#38598;&#20307;&#32452;&#32455;&#20013;&#30340;&#33258;&#30001;&#20027;&#20041;&#26159;&#21313;&#20998;&#26377;&#23475;&#30340;&#12290;&#23427;&#26159;&#19968;&#31181;&#33104;&#34432;&#21058;&#65292;&#20351;&#22242;&#32467;&#28067;&#25955;&#65292;&#20851;&#31995;&#26494;&#25032;&#65292;&#24037;&#20316;&#28040;&#26497;&#65292;&#24847;&#35265;&#20998;&#27495;&#12290;&#23427;&#20351;&#38761;&#21629;&#38431;&#20237;&#22833;&#25481;&#20005;&#23494;&#30340;&#32452;&#32455;&#21644;&#32426;&#24459;&#65292;&#25919;&#31574;&#19981;&#33021;&#36143;&#24443;&#21040;&#24213;&#65292;&#20826;&#30340;&#32452;&#32455;&#21644;&#20826;&#25152;&#39046;&#23548;&#30340;&#32676;&#20247;&#21457;&#29983;&#38548;&#31163;&#12290;&#36825;&#26159;&#19968;&#31181;&#20005;&#37325;&#30340;&#24694;&#21155;&#20542;&#21521;&#12290;

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads."

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung - Combat Liberalism


----------



## zonly1

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Becauses they sell dependency, gov't does a better job vs reliance on self.  Funny thing is and it's quit ignorant on the seller, being democRAT, to grow the publics sector when the the private sector props them up through taxation w/o representation.  Yes it's the private sector wealth that supports public sectors.  Public sectors consumes and destroys wealth produced by the private sector.


----------



## FA_Q2

Bfgrn said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Liberal propaganda*
> 
> Liberal propaganda is the use of distorted media coverage, half truths, deceit, liberal denial, and liberal bias to promote liberal political goals, such as gay marriage and the legalization of drugs- which are contrary to a pure moral nation.
> 
> Liberal propaganda can also take the form of inspirational images designed to portray liberal politicians in a positive light. For example, in his campaign for the Presidency, Barack Hussein Obama used artistically rendered images that sought to portray him as the center of a cult of personality.[1] This is disturbingly similar to the propaganda used by atheistic communist leaders.
> 
> Other examples include:
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea...Mao agrees with you right wingers...
> 
> What Mao Zedong said about liberalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#38761;&#21629;&#30340;&#38598;&#20307;&#32452;&#32455;&#20013;&#30340;&#33258;&#30001;&#20027;&#20041;&#26159;&#21313;&#20998;&#26377;&#23475;&#30340;&#12290;&#23427;&#26159;&#19968;&#31181;&#33104;&#34432;&#21058;&#65292;&#20351;&#22242;&#32467;&#28067;&#25955;&#65292;&#20851;&#31995;&#26494;&#25032;&#65292;&#24037;&#20316;&#28040;&#26497;&#65292;&#24847;&#35265;&#20998;&#27495;&#12290;&#23427;&#20351;&#38761;&#21629;&#38431;&#20237;&#22833;&#25481;&#20005;&#23494;&#30340;&#32452;&#32455;&#21644;&#32426;&#24459;&#65292;&#25919;&#31574;&#19981;&#33021;&#36143;&#24443;&#21040;&#24213;&#65292;&#20826;&#30340;&#32452;&#32455;&#21644;&#20826;&#25152;&#39046;&#23548;&#30340;&#32676;&#20247;&#21457;&#29983;&#38548;&#31163;&#12290;&#36825;&#26159;&#19968;&#31181;&#20005;&#37325;&#30340;&#24694;&#21155;&#20542;&#21521;&#12290;
> 
> "Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.
> 
> It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads."
> 
> Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung - Combat Liberalism
Click to expand...


Yup.  Since liberalism as he is referring to it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Americans who style themselves liberal or the Democratic Party, your point means nothing.


----------



## Bfgrn

FA_Q2 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea...Mao agrees with you right wingers...
> 
> What Mao Zedong said about liberalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#38761;&#21629;&#30340;&#38598;&#20307;&#32452;&#32455;&#20013;&#30340;&#33258;&#30001;&#20027;&#20041;&#26159;&#21313;&#20998;&#26377;&#23475;&#30340;&#12290;&#23427;&#26159;&#19968;&#31181;&#33104;&#34432;&#21058;&#65292;&#20351;&#22242;&#32467;&#28067;&#25955;&#65292;&#20851;&#31995;&#26494;&#25032;&#65292;&#24037;&#20316;&#28040;&#26497;&#65292;&#24847;&#35265;&#20998;&#27495;&#12290;&#23427;&#20351;&#38761;&#21629;&#38431;&#20237;&#22833;&#25481;&#20005;&#23494;&#30340;&#32452;&#32455;&#21644;&#32426;&#24459;&#65292;&#25919;&#31574;&#19981;&#33021;&#36143;&#24443;&#21040;&#24213;&#65292;&#20826;&#30340;&#32452;&#32455;&#21644;&#20826;&#25152;&#39046;&#23548;&#30340;&#32676;&#20247;&#21457;&#29983;&#38548;&#31163;&#12290;&#36825;&#26159;&#19968;&#31181;&#20005;&#37325;&#30340;&#24694;&#21155;&#20542;&#21521;&#12290;
> 
> "Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.
> 
> It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads."
> 
> Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung - Combat Liberalism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  Since liberalism as he is referring to it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Americans who style themselves liberal or the Democratic Party, your point means nothing.
Click to expand...


False...a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Cato Institute understands the difference.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

And so does the leading researcher on the authoritarian personality...

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians


----------



## HomeInspect

I don't hate Liberals. I feel sorry for the clueless


----------



## FA_Q2

Bfgrn said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea...Mao agrees with you right wingers...
> 
> What Mao Zedong said about liberalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#38761;&#21629;&#30340;&#38598;&#20307;&#32452;&#32455;&#20013;&#30340;&#33258;&#30001;&#20027;&#20041;&#26159;&#21313;&#20998;&#26377;&#23475;&#30340;&#12290;&#23427;&#26159;&#19968;&#31181;&#33104;&#34432;&#21058;&#65292;&#20351;&#22242;&#32467;&#28067;&#25955;&#65292;&#20851;&#31995;&#26494;&#25032;&#65292;&#24037;&#20316;&#28040;&#26497;&#65292;&#24847;&#35265;&#20998;&#27495;&#12290;&#23427;&#20351;&#38761;&#21629;&#38431;&#20237;&#22833;&#25481;&#20005;&#23494;&#30340;&#32452;&#32455;&#21644;&#32426;&#24459;&#65292;&#25919;&#31574;&#19981;&#33021;&#36143;&#24443;&#21040;&#24213;&#65292;&#20826;&#30340;&#32452;&#32455;&#21644;&#20826;&#25152;&#39046;&#23548;&#30340;&#32676;&#20247;&#21457;&#29983;&#38548;&#31163;&#12290;&#36825;&#26159;&#19968;&#31181;&#20005;&#37325;&#30340;&#24694;&#21155;&#20542;&#21521;&#12290;
> 
> "Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.
> 
> It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads."
> 
> Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung - Combat Liberalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  Since liberalism as he is referring to it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Americans who style themselves liberal or the Democratic Party, your point means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False...a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Cato Institute understands the difference.
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan
> 
> And so does the leading researcher on the authoritarian personality...
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
Click to expand...


Interesting.  I did not say anything whatsoever in my post about conservatives at all.  Nor did I mention anything about the right.  You, on the other hand, jumped right on the righties are authoritarians.  

Again - Since liberalism as he is referring to it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Americans who style themselves liberal or the Democratic Party, your point means nothing.

Whatever your convoluted mind might think that conservatives and the right are, it has no bearing on what the left is.  They are not diametrically opposed as you seem to be eluding.  One being fascist does not make the other the beacon of freedom.


----------



## tjvh

Bfgrn said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Liberal propaganda*
> 
> Liberal propaganda is the use of distorted media coverage, half truths, deceit, liberal denial, and liberal bias to promote liberal political goals, such as gay marriage and the legalization of drugs- which are contrary to a pure moral nation.
> 
> Liberal propaganda can also take the form of inspirational images designed to portray liberal politicians in a positive light. For example, in his campaign for the Presidency, Barack Hussein Obama used artistically rendered images that sought to portray him as the center of a cult of personality.[1] This is disturbingly similar to the propaganda used by atheistic communist leaders.
> 
> Other examples include:
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea...Mao agrees with you right wingers...
> 
> What Mao Zedong said about liberalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#38761;&#21629;&#30340;&#38598;&#20307;&#32452;&#32455;&#20013;&#30340;&#33258;&#30001;&#20027;&#20041;&#26159;&#21313;&#20998;&#26377;&#23475;&#30340;&#12290;&#23427;&#26159;&#19968;&#31181;&#33104;&#34432;&#21058;&#65292;&#20351;&#22242;&#32467;&#28067;&#25955;&#65292;&#20851;&#31995;&#26494;&#25032;&#65292;&#24037;&#20316;&#28040;&#26497;&#65292;&#24847;&#35265;&#20998;&#27495;&#12290;&#23427;&#20351;&#38761;&#21629;&#38431;&#20237;&#22833;&#25481;&#20005;&#23494;&#30340;&#32452;&#32455;&#21644;&#32426;&#24459;&#65292;&#25919;&#31574;&#19981;&#33021;&#36143;&#24443;&#21040;&#24213;&#65292;&#20826;&#30340;&#32452;&#32455;&#21644;&#20826;&#25152;&#39046;&#23548;&#30340;&#32676;&#20247;&#21457;&#29983;&#38548;&#31163;&#12290;&#36825;&#26159;&#19968;&#31181;&#20005;&#37325;&#30340;&#24694;&#21155;&#20542;&#21521;&#12290;
> 
> "Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.
> 
> It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads."
> 
> Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung - Combat Liberalism
Click to expand...


Try this Socialist twit... &#20320;&#20182;&#22920;&#30340;


----------



## editec

The clowns here whose apparent hatred for liberals are childish tools.

They'd hate _anybody_ who they thought society was giving them permission to hate.

Why?

Well these losers are just one of the many unpleasants ways that humans can be.

The stupid and hateful have ALWAYS been with us.


----------



## HomeInspect

The problem is, the left throws around the hate card, just like the race cards, When people don't agree with their ideas, if they can't call it racism, they call it hate.


----------



## SillyWabbit

HomeInspect said:


> The problem is, the left throws around the hate card, just like the race cards, When people don't agree with their ideas, if they can't call it racism, they call it hate.



There's a world full of hate floating around. Not everyone buys into it. I think most of us don't buy into it.

What do I know?


----------



## Mac1958

editec said:


> The clowns here whose apparent hatred for liberals are childish tools.
> 
> They'd hate _anybody_ who they thought society was giving them permission to hate.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Well these losers are just one of the many unpleasants ways that humans can be.
> 
> The stupid and hateful have ALWAYS been with us.




Sadly, all of the above is true...

... on both ends of the political spectrum.

.


----------



## Bfgrn

FA_Q2 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  Since liberalism as he is referring to it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Americans who style themselves liberal or the Democratic Party, your point means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False...a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Cato Institute understands the difference.
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan
> 
> And so does the leading researcher on the authoritarian personality...
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.  I did not say anything whatsoever in my post about conservatives at all.  Nor did I mention anything about the right.  You, on the other hand, jumped right on the righties are authoritarians.
> 
> Again - Since liberalism as he is referring to it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Americans who style themselves liberal or the Democratic Party, your point means nothing.
> 
> Whatever your convoluted mind might think that conservatives and the right are, it has no bearing on what the left is.  They are not diametrically opposed as you seem to be eluding.  One being fascist does not make the other the beacon of freedom.
Click to expand...


You're correct, you did not say anything whatsoever in your post about conservatives...I DID in my response. Because the core of liberalism Mao is referring to IS the core of liberalism of Americans who style themselves liberal or the Democratic Party.

And the core of conservatism of Americans who style themselves conservatives or the Republican Party is the same as conservatives in China, Russia and the Taliban.


----------



## Fordsflylow

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate Liberals for thinking they can run my life better then I can.   I hate them for trying to do it.  All the rest of you can cay you don't hate liberals, but I hate anyone who uses guns and force to coerce me, and that's exactly what the left are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Kaz, the Republicans are no better in this regard.  God forbid your a pregnant women or a gay or a Muslim then they are much worse.  I get it what you mean to say is you want people to not tell you what to do unless they are different from you in some way then it is perfectly okay for the government to dictate to them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, particularly given the fact liberals arent trying to run anyones life.
> 
> Indeed, as you note, its conservatives who for the most part who demand conformity and discourage dissent, they work to undermine privacy rights and expand the governments authority at the expense of individual liberty, and they seek to deny citizens equal access to the law, in violation of the 14th Amendment; they exhibit ignorance and contempt for the Constitution and its case law overall.
> 
> Its therefore understandable why conservatives hate liberals, as liberals act in accordance with the Constitution, and against conservative special interests and efforts to aggrandize power.
Click to expand...


They also sell to those morons who will buy it, that they are "conservative."  Too fucking funny!!


----------



## Fordsflylow

loinboy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having spent my career in GE Management (11 years) and Management Consulting (9 years)  doing strategy work for Fortune 500 companies, before going entrepreneurial and owning my own businesses (3),  only government can corrupt free markets because they are the only entity with guns and the power to implement unilateral rules and shut down competition by force.  When companies lobby government, it is still government that's corrupting the market, and your solution of the problem of companies lobbying government being to make government stronger is ... let's go with ... counterintuitive ...
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is when companies _"become" _the government.  Did you know, there are more Blackwater security forces in Iraq, than there are US troops?  Are you aware of all the intelligence agencies that have sprung up since 9/11?  Or that we have privatized our prison system?  Which explains why we have more people locked up than any country in history.
> 
> It's no secret we lost manufacturing jobs overseas.  But we've also lost many that remained here.  Did you know that 100% of the manufacturing of military helmuts is done with prison labor?
> 
> The people in government are puppets for the corporate oligarchy.  Government might have the guns, but the multi-nationals tell them where to point.
Click to expand...


Absolutely spot on!


----------



## SuMar

Interpol said:


> The people who hate liberals require an enemy.
> 
> They're repressed people who wage "wars" on everything, from drugs to immigrants to women to gov't to unions to liberals to endless oversea stalemates like Afghanistan.
> 
> If they were really happy people, they wouldn't have such huge hate-ons for everything in sight.



What is so laughable is the libs go on and on endlessly claiming the Republicans and their "war on women". Coming from a party where their liberal-in-command goes to these Muslim countries apologizing how bad America is when these countries treat their women like dirt. Treat their women bad. Rape and beatings and death in some cases. Keeping them covered head to toe in berkas and denying them of education. That is your war on women.


----------



## Ernie S.

*Why do people hate Liberals?*
Hate used to be a powerful word. People hated oppression, not the oppressed. They hated Stalin and Hitler, not the people they led. They hated rapists and child molesters, but not their victims. They hated poverty, but not the poor.
Conservatives still do, but we still don't hate poor people.
We don't even hate Liberals. What Conservatives hate is Liberal policy that shifts responsibility from the individual to the State, that shifts time honored principles to the dustbin by an activist Court.
I don't hate Liberals. I pity them and ridicule their ideas.


----------



## Bfgrn

SuMar said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who hate liberals require an enemy.
> 
> They're repressed people who wage "wars" on everything, from drugs to immigrants to women to gov't to unions to liberals to endless oversea stalemates like Afghanistan.
> 
> If they were really happy people, they wouldn't have such huge hate-ons for everything in sight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is so laughable is the libs go on and on endlessly claiming the Republicans and their "war on women". Coming from a party where their liberal-in-command goes to these Muslim countries apologizing how bad America is when these countries treat their women like dirt. Treat their women bad. Rape and beatings and death in some cases. Keeping them covered head to toe in berkas and denying them of education. That is your war on women.
Click to expand...


And ALL those Muslim countries are ULTRA-conservative societies. 

Our President is trying to repair the world opinion of America that was trashed by Bush and Cheney...Hirohito sneak attacks of sovereign countries, war crimes, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, torture and human crimes like THIS:

Bush knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent, former Colin Powell aide tells court

George W Bush knew that hundreds of detainees held at Guantánamo Bay were innocent - but covered the fact up for political reasons, a top former aide has told a U.S. court.

Retired Army Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, testified that officials 'knew that they had seized and were holding innocent men at Guantanamo Bay'.

'I discussed the issue of the Guantánamo detainees with Secretary Powell,' he said. 'I learnt that it was his view that it was not just Vice-President [Dick] Cheney and [Defense] Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld, but also President Bush who was involved in all of the Guantánamo decision making.'
'They simply refused to release them out of fear of political repercussions,' he continued.

Colonel Wilkerson heaped most of his criticism on the heads of of Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Cheney, saying they knew that the majority of the 742 detainees sent to Guantánamo in 2002 were not guilty of any crimes.

His assertion is understood to have been backed by General Powell, the Times has reported. 

General Powell left the Bush administration in 2005 in anger over the false information that he unknowlingly used to make the case for the war in Iraq.

Read more: Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent, former White House aide tells court | Mail Online


----------



## Ernie S.

Bfgrn said:


> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who hate liberals require an enemy.
> 
> They're repressed people who wage "wars" on everything, from drugs to immigrants to women to gov't to unions to liberals to endless oversea stalemates like Afghanistan.
> 
> If they were really happy people, they wouldn't have such huge hate-ons for everything in sight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is so laughable is the libs go on and on endlessly claiming the Republicans and their "war on women". Coming from a party where their liberal-in-command goes to these Muslim countries apologizing how bad America is when these countries treat their women like dirt. Treat their women bad. Rape and beatings and death in some cases. Keeping them covered head to toe in berkas and denying them of education. That is your war on women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And ALL those Muslim countries are ULTRA-conservative societies.
> 
> Our President is trying to repair the world opinion of America that was trashed by Bush and Cheney...Hirohito sneak attacks of sovereign countries, war crimes, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, torture and human crimes like THIS:
> 
> Bush knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent, former Colin Powell aide tells court
> 
> George W Bush knew that hundreds of detainees held at Guantánamo Bay were innocent - but covered the fact up for political reasons, a top former aide has told a U.S. court.
> 
> Retired Army Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, testified that officials 'knew that they had seized and were holding innocent men at Guantanamo Bay'.
> 
> 'I discussed the issue of the Guantánamo detainees with Secretary Powell,' he said. 'I learnt that it was his view that it was not just Vice-President [Dick] Cheney and [Defense] Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld, but also President Bush who was involved in all of the Guantánamo decision making.'
> 'They simply refused to release them out of fear of political repercussions,' he continued.
> 
> Colonel Wilkerson heaped most of his criticism on the heads of of Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Cheney, saying they knew that the majority of the 742 detainees sent to Guantánamo in 2002 were not guilty of any crimes.
> 
> His assertion is understood to have been backed by General Powell, the Times has reported.
> 
> General Powell left the Bush administration in 2005 in anger over the false information that he unknowlingly used to make the case for the war in Iraq.
> 
> Read more: Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent, former White House aide tells court | Mail Online
Click to expand...


You are trying to equate an oppressive theocracy to American conservatism? You're a fool!


----------



## Shelzin

Ernie S. said:


> *Why do people hate Liberals?*
> Hate used to be a powerful word. People hated oppression, not the oppressed. They hated Stalin and Hitler, not the people they led. They hated rapists and child molesters, but not their victims. They hated poverty, but not the poor.
> Conservatives still do, but we still don't hate poor people.
> We don't even hate Liberals. What Conservatives hate is Liberal policy that shifts responsibility from the individual to the State, that shifts time honored principles to the dustbin by an activist Court.
> I don't hate Liberals. I pity them and ridicule their ideas.


Hot damn a honest answer.  I think you are fucked up but have to give props direct honesty.  That's respectable.


----------



## Bfgrn

Ernie S. said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so laughable is the libs go on and on endlessly claiming the Republicans and their "war on women". Coming from a party where their liberal-in-command goes to these Muslim countries apologizing how bad America is when these countries treat their women like dirt. Treat their women bad. Rape and beatings and death in some cases. Keeping them covered head to toe in berkas and denying them of education. That is your war on women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And ALL those Muslim countries are ULTRA-conservative societies.
> 
> Our President is trying to repair the world opinion of America that was trashed by Bush and Cheney...Hirohito sneak attacks of sovereign countries, war crimes, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, torture and human crimes like THIS:
> 
> Bush knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent, former Colin Powell aide tells court
> 
> George W Bush knew that hundreds of detainees held at Guantánamo Bay were innocent - but covered the fact up for political reasons, a top former aide has told a U.S. court.
> 
> Retired Army Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, testified that officials 'knew that they had seized and were holding innocent men at Guantanamo Bay'.
> 
> 'I discussed the issue of the Guantánamo detainees with Secretary Powell,' he said. 'I learnt that it was his view that it was not just Vice-President [Dick] Cheney and [Defense] Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld, but also President Bush who was involved in all of the Guantánamo decision making.'
> 'They simply refused to release them out of fear of political repercussions,' he continued.
> 
> Colonel Wilkerson heaped most of his criticism on the heads of of Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Cheney, saying they knew that the majority of the 742 detainees sent to Guantánamo in 2002 were not guilty of any crimes.
> 
> His assertion is understood to have been backed by General Powell, the Times has reported.
> 
> General Powell left the Bush administration in 2005 in anger over the false information that he unknowlingly used to make the case for the war in Iraq.
> 
> Read more: Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent, former White House aide tells court | Mail Online
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to equate an oppressive theocracy to American conservatism? You're a fool!
Click to expand...


"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

What party has the theocrats? Take your time...

October 16, 2001

What's truly ironic about this whole war is that the conservatives in our country do not seem to realize that the Taliban is simply an extreme version of the same primal impulse that drives them.

In every population there is a distribution of conservative to progressive, aggressive to peaceful, etc. The famous classical game theoretic model, the Hawk-Dove contest, shows that the evolutionarily stable population in that model is not all hawks or all doves, but rather a certain degree of each; in that model, 58% "doves" and 42% "hawks". It stands to reason that it is expected that you will have both types of personality in your population. Similarly, I believe a stable distribution of political sensibility is probably one with both progressive and conservative elements.

Of course, it's funny how the same personality type seems to latch on to radically different ideas depending on the society. "Conservatives" here profess a belief in capitalism and extol the virtues of the good old days of the 1950's, a half century ago; "conservatives" in Russia pine for the bygone days of the stability of the old Soviet empire. I believe that the propensity in conservatives is not towards ideologies per se, but rather towards status quo versus change. I'd bet you'd find much more psychologically (and perhaps genetically?) similar between conservatives here and in Russia, despite the fact that they profess supposedly opposite nostalgias.

But of course a typical conservative doesn't look at the conservatism of their enemy and learn to moderate themselves; they see the enemy as an "other", as confirmation of their own rigid views, despite the evident similarity between the two stances.
_M. Hadeishi _


----------



## Fordsflylow

Bfgrn said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ALL those Muslim countries are ULTRA-conservative societies.
> 
> Our President is trying to repair the world opinion of America that was trashed by Bush and Cheney...Hirohito sneak attacks of sovereign countries, war crimes, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, torture and human crimes like THIS:
> 
> Bush knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent, former Colin Powell aide tells court
> 
> George W Bush knew that hundreds of detainees held at Guantánamo Bay were innocent - but covered the fact up for political reasons, a top former aide has told a U.S. court.
> 
> Retired Army Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, testified that officials 'knew that they had seized and were holding innocent men at Guantanamo Bay'.
> 
> 'I discussed the issue of the Guantánamo detainees with Secretary Powell,' he said. 'I learnt that it was his view that it was not just Vice-President [Dick] Cheney and [Defense] Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld, but also President Bush who was involved in all of the Guantánamo decision making.'
> 'They simply refused to release them out of fear of political repercussions,' he continued.
> 
> Colonel Wilkerson heaped most of his criticism on the heads of of Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Cheney, saying they knew that the majority of the 742 detainees sent to Guantánamo in 2002 were not guilty of any crimes.
> 
> His assertion is understood to have been backed by General Powell, the Times has reported.
> 
> General Powell left the Bush administration in 2005 in anger over the false information that he unknowlingly used to make the case for the war in Iraq.
> 
> Read more: Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent, former White House aide tells court | Mail Online
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to equate an oppressive theocracy to American conservatism? You're a fool!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> What party has the theocrats? Take your time...
> 
> October 16, 2001
> 
> What's truly ironic about this whole war is that the conservatives in our country do not seem to realize that the Taliban is simply an extreme version of the same primal impulse that drives them.
> 
> In every population there is a distribution of conservative to progressive, aggressive to peaceful, etc. The famous classical game theoretic model, the Hawk-Dove contest, shows that the evolutionarily stable population in that model is not all hawks or all doves, but rather a certain degree of each; in that model, 58% "doves" and 42% "hawks". It stands to reason that it is expected that you will have both types of personality in your population. Similarly, I believe a stable distribution of political sensibility is probably one with both progressive and conservative elements.
> 
> Of course, it's funny how the same personality type seems to latch on to radically different ideas depending on the society. "Conservatives" here profess a belief in capitalism and extol the virtues of the good old days of the 1950's, a half century ago; "conservatives" in Russia pine for the bygone days of the stability of the old Soviet empire. I believe that the propensity in conservatives is not towards ideologies per se, but rather towards status quo versus change. I'd bet you'd find much more psychologically (and perhaps genetically?) similar between conservatives here and in Russia, despite the fact that they profess supposedly opposite nostalgias.
> 
> But of course a typical conservative doesn't look at the conservatism of their enemy and learn to moderate themselves; they see the enemy as an "other", as confirmation of their own rigid views, despite the evident similarity between the two stances.
> _M. Hadeishi _
Click to expand...


I'd like to know how these current jokers who are labeled conservative earned that label?


----------



## American_Jihad

*Liberals & Islamists: Twins Separated at Birth?*

September 2, 2012 
by Chris Gadsden

A pervasive disease is threatening to rot the core of our country while too many blithely trudge through life. Our very existence is under attack and has been for many years. Though our country is founded upon the bedrock of religious liberty, free enterprise and equal rights for all, there is a group that abhors such tenants. Actually, there is more than one. Much is made of the destructive fundamentalist beliefs of the radical Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda and other extreme Middle Eastern groups. A staggeringly large majority of the worlds terrorism and conflicts are due to these groups. Daily they continue to infiltrate the governments of many countries, spreading hate, subjugating women and minorities, and sowing general discord while they drag their nations back to the Stone Age. How, in reality, are they any different than liberals and progressives of todays America? There are too many disturbing parallels between these two enemies of the United States:

Both groups believe in love and inclusion.until your beliefs are different than theirs. While cretins with Coexist bumper stickers profess to respect all, are they not the ones always attacking those on the Right instead of reaching out in kindness? Within minutes of the stirring RNC speech by Utah mayor Mia Love, was it not the Left that altered her Wikipedia page to describe her as a dirty, worthless whore who sold her soul in the name of big business in addition to being a house ******? See they treat the product of an immigrant family who moved here for American freedoms and a better way of life? Look how the Left attacks any black Conservative. Never are individuals who believe in small government at the very least respected by the radical Left. They are despised, castigated and maligned, if not worse. How is this treatment of the Lefts political adversaries any different than Islamists who claim the Koran teaches acceptance and inclusion but only as long as the individuals in question are believers in Allah. If not, they are infidels and to be conquered, converted or killed. There is not much live and let live for either group.

---

Liberals & Islamists: Twins Separated at Birth?  Patriot Update


----------



## American_Jihad

*The Tedium of Leftism*

By Bruce Walker
9/12/12

Leftism is not an ideology.  No sane person thinks "soaking the rich" or "investing tax dollars" achieves any particular objective.  The creation of predefined bogeymen is an ancient and unsavory strategy for seizing and then holding power -- the Jewish people can testify to that grim fact -- and there is nothing more to it than that.  Leftist leaders today are simply the barbarian warlords of centuries ago who promised to steal and to share the spoils of what others have worked to produce.  

Marxism is only one of several contemporary mantras dreamed up to let party bosses rob and loot.  The Nazis, too, denounced capitalism and claimed that they were victims of oppression.  The similarity between these two malign modern barbarians was such that many commentators of the time saw them as not just similar, but practically identical.  The conjuring up of eternal victims and eternal victimizers was at the heart of this black magic.

---

Read more: Articles: The Tedium of Leftism


----------



## Fordsflylow

American_Jihad said:


> *The Tedium of Leftism*
> 
> By Bruce Walker
> 9/12/12
> 
> Leftism is not an ideology.  No sane person thinks "soaking the rich" or "investing tax dollars" achieves any particular objective.  The creation of predefined bogeymen is an ancient and unsavory strategy for seizing and then holding power -- the Jewish people can testify to that grim fact -- and there is nothing more to it than that.  Leftist leaders today are simply the barbarian warlords of centuries ago who promised to steal and to share the spoils of what others have worked to produce.
> 
> Marxism is only one of several contemporary mantras dreamed up to let party bosses rob and loot.  The Nazis, too, denounced capitalism and claimed that they were victims of oppression.  The similarity between these two malign modern barbarians was such that many commentators of the time saw them as not just similar, but practically identical.  The conjuring up of eternal victims and eternal victimizers was at the heart of this black magic.
> 
> ---
> 
> Read more: Articles: The Tedium of Leftism



If you and folks like you weren't so sad you'd be funny.

Why was this country founded?  I'd like to read your warped view on that as well.


----------



## rightwinger

SuMar said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who hate liberals require an enemy.
> 
> They're repressed people who wage "wars" on everything, from drugs to immigrants to women to gov't to unions to liberals to endless oversea stalemates like Afghanistan.
> 
> If they were really happy people, they wouldn't have such huge hate-ons for everything in sight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is so laughable is the libs go on and on endlessly claiming the Republicans and their "war on women". Coming from a party where their liberal-in-command goes to these Muslim countries apologizing how bad America is when these countries treat their women like dirt. Treat their women bad. Rape and beatings and death in some cases. Keeping them covered head to toe in berkas and denying them of education. That is your war on women.
Click to expand...


Republicans treat women better than Muslims.........got it


----------



## ScienceRocks

Look at Cuba to understand why. Any questions?


----------



## rightwinger

American_Jihad said:


> *The Tedium of Leftism*
> 
> By Bruce Walker
> 9/12/12
> 
> Leftism is not an ideology.  No sane person thinks "soaking the rich" or "investing tax dollars" achieves any particular objective.  The creation of predefined bogeymen is an ancient and unsavory strategy for seizing and then holding power -- the Jewish people can testify to that grim fact -- and there is nothing more to it than that.  Leftist leaders today are simply the barbarian warlords of centuries ago who promised to steal and to share the spoils of what others have worked to produce.
> 
> Marxism is only one of several contemporary mantras dreamed up to let party bosses rob and loot.  The Nazis, too, denounced capitalism and claimed that they were victims of oppression.  The similarity between these two malign modern barbarians was such that many commentators of the time saw them as not just similar, but practically identical.  The conjuring up of eternal victims and eternal victimizers was at the heart of this black magic.
> 
> ---
> 
> Read more: Articles: The Tedium of Leftism



What does "investing tax dollars" achieve?

Public infrastructure (roads, bridges, communications, water, sewer)
Free education for all
Safety, security (police, fire, ambulance)
National security
Social safety net (social security, medicare, welfare, unemployment)

Most things in life are better achieved as an individual. But some are better pursued as part of a society. That is what our tax dollars achieve


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

I don't _hate _them, I just like it a lot more when they're not around... they're quite the miserable lot... real buzzkill.


----------



## American_Jihad

*If Liberals Are More Intelligent than Conservatives, Why Are Liberals So Stupid?Who are clever sillies? *


by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist 
Published on March 28, 2010

While it is consistent with the prediction of the Hypothesis, the conclusion in my previous post that liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives may not resonate with most peoples daily observations and experiences.  If they are more intelligent, why are liberals  especially those in Hollywood and academia  so much more likely than conservatives to say and do stupid things and hold incredulous beliefs and ideas that stretch credibility?

Bruce G. Charlton, Professor of Theoretical Medicine at the University of Buckingham and Editor in Chief of Medical Hypotheses, may have an explanation.  In his editorial in the December 2009 issue of Medical Hypotheses, Charlton suggests that liberals and other intelligent people may be clever sillies, who incorrectly apply abstract logical reasoning to social and interpersonal domains.  As I explain in an earlier post, general intelligence  the ability to think and reason  likely evolved as a domain-specific evolved psychological mechanism to solve evolutionarily novel problems, whereas, for all evolutionarily familiar problems, there are other dedicated evolved psychological mechanisms.  Everyone  intelligent or not  is evolutionarily equipped with the ability to solve such evolutionarily familiar problems in the social and interpersonal domains as mating, parenting, social exchange, and personal relationships, with the other evolved psychological mechanisms.  Charlton suggests that the totality of all the other evolved psychological mechanisms (except for general intelligence) represents what we normally call common sense.  Everyone has common sense.  Intelligent people, however, have a tendency to overapply their analytical and logical reasoning abilities derived from their general intelligence incorrectly to such evolutionarily familiar domains and as a result get things wrong.  In other words, liberals and other intelligent people lack common sense, because their general intelligence overrides it.  They think in situations where they are supposed to feel.  In evolutionarily familiar domains such as interpersonal relationships, feeling usually leads to correct solutions whereas thinking does not.

---

If Liberals Are More Intelligent than Conservatives, Why Are Liberals So Stupid? | Psychology Today


----------



## American_Jihad

*Shut Up or Die, the Muslim Protesters Explained*

By John T. Bennett
10/5/12


Would liberals support censorship in response to wife-beaters, skinheads, abortion-clinic bombers, gay-bashers, or any other violent group?  Then why do they support censorship in response to terrorists? 

It appears that some liberals want to offer Muslim extremists the benefit of voluntary, self-imposed censorship.  Few violent groups in America -- or on earth, for that matter -- get such tender treatment.

---

Thanks to multiculturalism, we can't even stand up for ourselves in a simple standoff between barbarism and free speech.  We've become so obsessed with being unoffensive that we can't bring ourselves to make the most basic criticisms of group behavior, even when that behavior is violent.  This applies both at home and abroad.  In the case of the Libya attack two weeks ago, the resulting approach on the part of some liberals has been, in a word, cowardly.

As awful as the consequences are, liberals are really just expressing their priorities by advocating that we barter away rights in order to accommodate hordes of violent bigots.  On one hand we have the right to speak and offend; on the other, we have the sensibilities of barbaric fanatics.  So liberals prioritize the latter, and in the process have found a herd of bigots whom they'll essentially take sides with.  Why did liberals choose this particular bunch?  It could be that Muslim extremists are more culturally vibrant than wife-beaters, violent skinheads, and all the rest.  The more likely answer is that liberals are glad to accommodate extremists who are non-white, or non-Christian, and it really helps if the extremists hate Israel.

---

Read more: Articles: Shut Up or Die, the Muslim Protesters Explained


----------



## American_Jihad

*Leftists violence on the rise: The two stories the MSM should be focused on*

2/11/13

...

The first involves a 28-year-old man from San Jose who thought he was working with the Taliban and tried to set of a car bomb in California. Luckily, he was working with the FBI, and was arrested. What was the 28-year-olds goal with the thwarted violent attack? To frame the Tea Party, initiate a government crackdown on guns, thus sparking a civil war across the country.

The second story is one youre most likely already aware of  Chris Dorner. Dorner is the man who went missing in Los Angeles after killing three police officers.
...

Dorner, whose targets include the leaders of the NRA, wrote a long, murderous manifesto about how he hates the NRA, hates guns (yet used them to kill three people), and holds up people like MSNBCs Joe Scarborough and CNNs Piers Morgan as heroes. 

He said these guys get it. So what hes doing now is hes trying to further gun control as well, Glenn explained.

By killing people, Pat added.

Yet, he has supporters  a growing number of them. In fact, theyve created a Facebook page called Dorner for president that states: We propose electing a man who can no longer sit idly by and watch as malicious tyrants abuse the innocent.

Nearly 3,000 people now like the page I support Chris Dorner, and on another page We are all Chris Dorner, the description chillingly reads: Yes, this is war.

...

Leftists violence on the rise: The two stories the MSM should be focused on ? Glenn Beck


----------



## Michelle420

I wish there were no party affiliations.


----------



## rdean

Conservatives aren't "people".  They are "heartless lemmings".


----------



## JimBowie1958

rdean said:


> Conservatives aren't "people".  They are "heartless lemmings".



And lying trolls like you are brainless fucktards.


----------



## Clementine

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



You can't be serious.  You act as if liberals are so nice and don't ever use hate speech.   Just the comments I get with rep are horrible.

I would like to know why more libs don't articulate why they feel certain policies are good or bad.    I am tired of having sources attacked or incredibly nasty comments about the poster, but never a thoughtful explanation of what they think.

For instance, if I ask who gave the orders to stand down during the Benghazi attack, I get called name or someone says it's pubcrappe.    No one ever says it's a good question and worth discussing.   No one ever attempts to explain it, just attacks me or the source.   

I'm sure one of the usual suspects will be tempted to respond to this with the common used- "What, are you still butthurt?"   or other equally stupid comment.    Is that all the left has got?

I'd like to see a liberal write a paragraph or two, in their own words, to explain why they are okay with Obama killing American citizens or why it was okay to raise taxes even on the poorest workers.


----------



## Mr. H.

I have as many Liberal friends and family as I do Conservative. 

I only hate a few of them. Liberal and Conservative.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Under which rock do you reside? Does it have an address?


----------



## bripat9643

rdean said:


> Conservatives aren't "people".  They are "heartless lemmings".



That pretty much sums up the liberal method of argument, and explains perfectly why respectable people think they are scum.


----------



## American_Jihad

bripat9643 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives aren't "people".  They are "heartless lemmings".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That pretty much sums up the liberal method of argument, and explains perfectly why respectable people think they are scum.
Click to expand...


Just like in the OP:

"Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. *I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all." *

You don't see a pattern, rolmao, does anyone else see a pattern from da HellStinki commie...

Typical Progressive/liberal euro-trash, NEXT...


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,


1. Liberals are hate-able because *they hate themselves most*.
2. Any more questions?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## rdean

JimBowie1958 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives aren't "people".  They are "heartless lemmings".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And lying trolls like you are brainless fucktards.
Click to expand...


Lie about what?


----------



## American_Jihad

thereisnospoon said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under which rock do you reside? Does it have an address?
Click to expand...



Here he is...









I found him on the outskirts of HellStinki...


I like salunski rules 5/6...


----------



## rdean

bripat9643 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives aren't "people".  They are "heartless lemmings".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That pretty much sums up the liberal method of argument, and explains perfectly why respectable people think they are scum.
Click to expand...


Only the party of "let him die" and "feed the poor and they will breed" think of themselves as "perfect" and "respectable".


----------



## Mr. H.

rdean said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives aren't "people".  They are "heartless lemmings".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That pretty much sums up the liberal method of argument, and explains perfectly why respectable people think they are scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only the party of "let him die" and "feed the poor and they will breed" think of themselves as "perfect" and "respectable".
Click to expand...


Could you honestly make such a statement as mine?

_I have as many Liberal friends and family as I do Conservative. 

I only hate a few of them. Liberal and Conservative._

Or maybe the fact is, you just got no friends.


----------



## Dot Com

they fear that which requires thinking outside of the box


----------



## theDoctorisIn

"Liberals" and "Conservatives" are all just _people_.

There are smart people and stupid people. There are people who think of everything in black and white, and there are people who think in shades of grey. There are dogmatic people, and free thinkers.

"Liberal" and "Conservative" are just self-applied labels, nothing more. Just _people_.


----------



## Mr. H.

theDoctorisIn said:


> "Liberals" and "Conservatives" are all just _people_.
> 
> There are smart people and stupid people. There are people who think of everything in black and white, and there are people who think in shades of grey. There are dogmatic people, and free thinkers.
> 
> "Liberal" and "Conservative" are just self-applied labels, nothing more. Just _people_.



That's MR. stupid people to you, pal.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Mr. H. said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Liberals" and "Conservatives" are all just _people_.
> 
> There are smart people and stupid people. There are people who think of everything in black and white, and there are people who think in shades of grey. There are dogmatic people, and free thinkers.
> 
> "Liberal" and "Conservative" are just self-applied labels, nothing more. Just _people_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's MR. stupid people to you, pal.
Click to expand...


And that's *Doctor* Pal to you, MR. stupid people!


----------



## Qball

Saigon said:


> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.



This part should answer your question. Nowhere do you entertain the notion that there are loathsome liberals. Maybe if you ever come across a couple you'll see why people hate liberals.

OK, that was cheap.

I don't hate anybody just because they have a different set of beliefs than me. I like discussing different views and opinions. What I dislike is when people cowardly incubate their beliefs by denying what they are, and what liberals do, which is beancounting mistakes without taking historical context into account (i.e. your claim that Clinton had one of the most successful administrations in history while not mentioning he had to answer to a Republican-run Congress, and was decidedly more centrist in office than he has been in the years since).


----------



## yidnar

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


the question you should be asking is why do libbs hate America,Christians,Jews , the constitution,law enforcement, the military ,private business,and personal accountability ??


----------



## American_Jihad

yidnar said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> the question you should be asking is why do libbs hate America,Christians,Jews , the constitution,law enforcement, the military ,private business,and personal accountability ??
Click to expand...


Good Questions...


----------



## SuperDave

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



As for why you see a lot more hate coming from the Conservative side on this site, I can't be sure because I'm fairly new here but I would guess there are a couple of simple explanations.  One is that this site has more Conservative posters than Liberal ones.  Secondly, again I can't be certain this applies to you because I don't know you, but as a Liberal you can look at a post by a Conservative and see it as hateful rhetoric while a similar post made from the POV of the Left you would see as reasoned debate.

As for why Conservatives feel such animosity towards Liberals, it's in response to how we are treated by them.  Here are a few examples:

--If a Conservative criticizes President Obama's policies it is because he is a Racist
--If we believe that the government has to get control of it's budget, stop borrowing 42 cents of every dollar we spend and do something about the insane 16 Trillion dollar debt it's because we want poor people to starve.
--If we think that Social Security and Medicare have to be reformed so that they remain solvent for future retirees it's because we want to make old people choose between their medicine and food.  Some on the Left have suggested that we don't mind them having both as long as they are eating cat food.
--If we dare suggest that the nature of Climate Change, formerly Global Warming, and mankind's role in it is not fully understood and maybe before we completely wreck our economy we should get a better handle on things we are attacked as the equivalent of members of the Flat Earth Society.
--If we believe that a 225 year old Secular government shouldn't be re-defining a 5,000 year old Religious institution, and yes most Social Conservatives are wrong on this as well but just from the other side, we are considered bigots and Homophobes.
--And of course it's hard to go through a week without us being called Nazi's for one reason or another
--That's a few off the top of my head and of course I didn't even touch on the insane double standard of the majority of the media.  Wouldn't you have hard feelings for people who talked about you that way?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Tissue?


----------



## HomeInspect

I don't hate Liberals. I feel sorry for them. It is hard to hate the naive and complacent. What I do hate is some of the policies we get because of them.


----------



## jillian

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



rush limbaugh told them to.


----------



## bripat9643

HomeInspect said:


> I don't hate Liberals. I feel sorry for them. It is hard to hate the naive and complacent. What I do hate is some of the policies we get because of them.



You're naive to think they're naive or complacent.


----------



## HomeInspect

bripat9643 said:


> HomeInspect said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate Liberals. I feel sorry for them. It is hard to hate the naive and complacent. What I do hate is some of the policies we get because of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're naive to think they're naive or complacent.
Click to expand...


Most that I have met are exactly that. And by the rhetoric on this board, most are here too.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Liberal Hypocrisy: Hurting Minorities While Claiming To Help Them*


February 22, 2013
by David L. Goetsch


The maxim, if you want to FEEL good be a liberal but if you want to DO good be a conservative, has never rung so true. It is disturbing to realize how far liberal Democrats have been able to advance their leftwing agenda by whispering pleasing but false promises in the ears of poor minorities while simultaneously stabbing them in the back. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that contemporary liberalismso-called progressivismhas done more to harm poor minorities than anything since slavery. In fact, for poor minorities in America, progressivism is little more than a new form of slavery. 

Examples abound concerning liberal policies and programs that purport to help poor minorities when in fact they do more harm than good. One such example is the lefts commitment to continually raising the minimum wage in spite of indisputable evidence that doing so creates high unemployment, especially among young blacks and other minorities. Ever higher minimum-wage rates simply freeze young minorities out of the workplace just when they are seeking that all-important first job. Unable to get a job, too many are left spending their idle time on the streets where the criminal element quickly recruits them for nefarious activities that lead to no good. Those poor minorities who refuse to take up a life of crime are still prime targets for another group: liberals looking to expand the ranks of entitled minorities who look to government for their sustenance. Either route is destructive for the individuals in question and for our country.

...

Read more: Liberal Hypocrisy: Hurting Minorities While Claiming To Help Them ? Patriot Update


----------



## DigitalDrifter

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



I stopped reading when I came to this line:

"And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives."


----------



## Agit8r

I suspect that it's a difference of opinion about what liberty means.

"where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists... for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?"
-- John Locke; from Second Treatise of Civil Government, CHAP. VI.


----------



## thereisnospoon

American_Jihad said:


> *Liberal Hypocrisy: Hurting Minorities While Claiming To Help Them*
> 
> 
> February 22, 2013
> by David L. Goetsch
> 
> 
> The maxim, if you want to FEEL good be a liberal but if you want to DO good be a conservative, has never rung so true. It is disturbing to realize how far liberal Democrats have been able to advance their leftwing agenda by whispering pleasing but false promises in the ears of poor minorities while simultaneously stabbing them in the back. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that contemporary liberalismso-called progressivismhas done more to harm poor minorities than anything since slavery. In fact, for poor minorities in America, progressivism is little more than a new form of slavery.
> 
> Examples abound concerning liberal policies and programs that purport to help poor minorities when in fact they do more harm than good. One such example is the lefts commitment to continually raising the minimum wage in spite of indisputable evidence that doing so creates high unemployment, especially among young blacks and other minorities. Ever higher minimum-wage rates simply freeze young minorities out of the workplace just when they are seeking that all-important first job. Unable to get a job, too many are left spending their idle time on the streets where the criminal element quickly recruits them for nefarious activities that lead to no good. Those poor minorities who refuse to take up a life of crime are still prime targets for another group: liberals looking to expand the ranks of entitled minorities who look to government for their sustenance. Either route is destructive for the individuals in question and for our country.
> 
> ...
> 
> Read more: Liberal Hypocrisy: Hurting Minorities While Claiming To Help Them ? Patriot Update



Simply put, liberalism has created the permanent underclass of people who for one generation after another have become dependent then accustomed to then self entitled to public assistance.


----------



## bripat9643

DigitalDrifter said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading when I came to this line:
> 
> "And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives."
Click to expand...


Yeah, that had me rolling on the floor!


----------



## bripat9643

Agit8r said:


> I suspect that it's a difference of opinion about what liberty means.
> 
> "where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists... for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?"
> -- John Locke; from Second Treatise of Civil Government, CHAP. VI.



Libturds believe freedom is the ability to do whatever the government tells you to do.


----------



## numan

'
*...is either a little liberal  or a little conserva-tive"*

I don't have a horse in this race, since I am neither liberal nor conservative -- I don't think the terms have much meaning in the modern world.

I suppose, ideally, a conservative is someone who wishes to preserve what is good from the past while moving forward, and a liberal is someone who wishes to move forward, while not destroying what is good from the past. · · 



Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


It seems to me that there is no REAL reason -- I think people on both sides of the left-right divide have simply been brainwashed by manipulators who have access to their brains -- very little of what most people think seems to be logically thought out. 

I know most people are sure that they have not been brainwashed, but I think they are mistaken. In this modern society it is well nigh impossible to avoid being mentally manipulated.

I note that the words "liberal" and "conservative" keep changing their meaning in the mass mind. They meant something different in the 19th century from the 20th century -- different things in Europe than in America, generally. When I was young, "liberal" was a term of general approval, and even conservatives considered themselves to have many liberal virtues. In the rabid hatefulness of the MCarthy Era, thoughtful conservtives wanted to preserve what was good from the past, and they wanted to fight against totalitarianism, whether of the fascist variety or the communist variety. "Liberals" were in favor of much the same thing -- they were in favor of free market forces, though they wanted  regulations  to guard against criminal collusion and manipulation  that might lead to a new Depression.

Today the word "liberal" seems to have changed its meaning yet again, to become a mere swear word for what people dislike emotionally -- like the word "Commie!" in the bad old 1950's. It seems to have very little connection with its original meaning of abetting free market forces. 

Likewise, the word "conservative" seems in many people's minds not to mean preserving the virtues of the past while moving forward, but rather conjures up the image of heartless, nasty Neo-Cons who are hell-bent on turning society into a totalitarian gulag totally run by monopolistic, uncontrolled, international mega-corporations in some sort of dystopian nightmare.

I think the future will be much different from either side's nightmare -- and probably, very much worse. 
.


----------



## Rozman

Liberals feel the only way to fix a problem is to throw other people's money at it.
And when that doesn't work it was because they just didn't throw enough money at it.
What I still can't get over was the President's "you didn't build that speech"...
That spoke volumes about the contempt that lefties have for people that want to make a better
life for themselves.


----------



## francoHFW

OP- People don't hate liberals- angry white men/dupes hate people lol.  The mess we're in is the legacy of 30 years of Reaganism and Voodoo- the slow ruin of the nonrich and the country, and the rise of a giant propaganda machine for the hater dupes- a disgrace.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Liberals are hilarious. When I was young and impressionable, they convinced me they were smart and principled.  Now, they make me laugh. They will exhaust themselves fighting problems to your last dollar. The only thing they like to work hard at is finding new ways to take from people who actually work


----------



## thereisnospoon

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



I don't hate them. I disagree with the liberal ideology.
I despise everything about liberalism. 
It's garbage.


----------



## lockedemosthene

In the end it's a simple divide and conquer strategy, If you are liberal, your conquered, if you are conservative, you are conquered... the liberals and conservatives up in washngton are having drinks and clapping each other on the back while their followers spit venom and "fling poo" at each other.


----------



## uscitizen

Why do people hate Liberals? 
They are jealous of us.


----------



## initforme

While I surely am no liberal I also dont buy into the "american exceptionalism" rhetoric.   That makes me laugh hysterically.   A person can cut through the bs of the so called "conservative" and "liberal" banter with a knife because its thick and narrow minded not to mention bigoted.


----------



## WUN

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



I don't hate liberals, but I despise the stances of progressives or ultra-leftwingers.  Just as I don't like the stances of reactionary rightwingers, neocons or tea party members.  Basically I am anti-extremist and anti-intolerance. American progressives and tea party members are intolerant of variance of opinions and they do nothing but try to divide the country into two groups and drive polarization, which I reject.  They are trying to drive moderates into extinction.


----------



## Pheonixops

Rozman said:


> Liberals feel *the only way to fix a problem is to throw other people's money at it.
> And when that doesn't work it was because they just didn't throw enough money at it.*
> What I still can't get over was the President's "you didn't build that speech"...
> That spoke volumes about the contempt that lefties have for people that want to make a better
> life for themselves.



All philosophies and parties ave done that. See "the War on drugs", etc.


----------



## thereisnospoon

initforme said:


> While I surely am no liberal I also dont buy into the "american exceptionalism" rhetoric.   That makes me laugh hysterically.   A person can cut through the bs of the so called "conservative" and "liberal" banter with a knife because its thick and narrow minded not to mention bigoted.



American Exceptionalism IS a reality.
It refers to the greatest accomplishment in freedom, liberty and prosperity in the history of mankind.
It also says we believe we can be the best at everything we try. It also means that every person has the right to pursue what ever accomplishments he wishes to the best of his ability.
Your side sees American Exceptionalism to mean arrogance. So you try to tear down anything that makes this nation great.


----------



## WUN

thereisnospoon said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I surely am no liberal I also dont buy into the "american exceptionalism" rhetoric.   That makes me laugh hysterically.   A person can cut through the bs of the so called "conservative" and "liberal" banter with a knife because its thick and narrow minded not to mention bigoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Exceptionalism IS a reality.
> It refers to the greatest accomplishment in freedom, liberty and prosperity in the history of mankind.
> It also says we believe we can be the best at everything we try. It also means that every person has the right to pursue what ever accomplishments he wishes to the best of his ability.
> Your side sees American Exceptionalism to mean arrogance. So you try to tear down anything that makes this nation great.
Click to expand...


I think America is great too, but mainly because this is where I was born. I cannot deny America's successes, but I also cannot deny it's wastefulness and culture of unhealthiness.

Also, I don't think that the USA shouldn't rest on it's laurels, but not necessarily look at other nations as a role model for change.  It appears that you think the USA is the best at everything and it will always be that way, while I'm not quite convinced of that.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Cognitive Dissonance.


----------



## thereisnospoon

WUN said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I surely am no liberal I also dont buy into the "american exceptionalism" rhetoric.   That makes me laugh hysterically.   A person can cut through the bs of the so called "conservative" and "liberal" banter with a knife because its thick and narrow minded not to mention bigoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Exceptionalism IS a reality.
> It refers to the greatest accomplishment in freedom, liberty and prosperity in the history of mankind.
> It also says we believe we can be the best at everything we try. It also means that every person has the right to pursue what ever accomplishments he wishes to the best of his ability.
> Your side sees American Exceptionalism to mean arrogance. So you try to tear down anything that makes this nation great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think America is great too, but mainly because this is where I was born. I cannot deny America's successes, but I also cannot deny it's wastefulness and culture of unhealthiness.
> 
> Also, I don't think that the USA shouldn't rest on it's laurels, but not necessarily look at other nations as a role model for change.  It appears that you think the USA is the best at everything and it will always be that way, while I'm not quite convinced of that.
Click to expand...


No. What I believe is a nation such as ours which strives to keep it's standing should never become complacent or stagnant. 
The above if permitted to become the norm breed mediocrity.
We are the best. That is why this works so well.
Loo, no society is without challenges and dare I say, problems. 
There is at least to my knowledge, no such thing as a perfect society.


----------



## yidnar

Saigon said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their economic theory's are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see there is any evidence of that at a theoertical level.
> 
> Some of the world's most succesful governments have been liberal.
> 
> In fact, I think you'd struggle to mount a case that conservatives have a better economi record in government that liberals. In any country.
Click to expand...

yeah Europe is doing great !! the democratic party has moved so far to the left that today JFK would not win the democratic nomination !!


----------



## Mr. H.

Liberals see a big broad swath of a picture of things. 

I see moments in time, based upon my situation at hand.

Liberals create solutions based upon a best-guess scenario.

I see solutions based upon the shit that befalls me. They are calculated. 

Calculated shit from above. I hold on to my hat and pray for the best. 

Patience... waiting... waiting. 

Years in the making. Years of suffering and wanting. 

It's good shit for the soul.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wry Catcher said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cognitive Dissonance.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYabrQrXt4A]I'm smart - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mr. H.

I'm insulted by Liberals. 

I was once poor, yet Liberals did not come to my defense. 

I was once downtrodden, yet Liberals did not rescue me from my demise. 

I went hungry, yet... blah blah blah. 

Fuck you Liberal **** buckets. 

Your poor is not my poor. 

Never was, never will be.


----------



## American_Jihad

liberal logic 101 - Google Search



...


----------



## SuperDave

loinboy said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well for starters, they call republicans racist if they disagree with obama.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true.  We call certain people racists who:
> 
> criticize the President less than 10 days after his inaugaration before he's even had a chance to do anything to be criticized for.
> make up baseless accusations just to criticize him.
> hold up racist signs at pep rallys.
> say that we need to bring back Jim Crow laws like Tom Tancredo said at a town hall.
> people who say he has a "deep seated hatred for white people".
> people who claim "he's not one of us"; "he's a muslim"; "he's not from here"; "he pals around with terrorists"'
> people who sing songs like "Barack the magic negro"
> And people who simply refuse to respect the Office of the Presidency, no matter what he does.
> 
> Those are the people we call racist.
Click to expand...


1)  So we had just had nearly a year of campaigning, primaries and an election where, at the time, candidate Obama described in great detail his plans for what he was going to do during his Presidency up to and including "Fundamentally Changing" the nature of the country.  But since we didn't wait until he actually started changing the nature of the country to criticize his policies we must be racist.

2)  Then we make up baseless accusations to criticize him.  Next thing you know we'll be hurling vague, non-specific accusations at him that contain no substance or detail.  And of course the only people who've ever made up baseless accusations to criticize someone are Racists.  I mean no one ever accused a Conservative or a Republican or even the rare Conservative Republican of doing that to President Clinton

3)  I'm assuming you're specifically referring to Tea Party rally's, though  you're accusations are pretty consistent in their vagueness.  You are right though there were some racists at those rally's, any good sized gathering will have some, even Racists are allowed to support a balanced budget, and with thousands of people there and the media looking as hard as they could it's not surprising that they were able to find some racist signs.  If you're looking for it, racism isn't hard to find, for example the Senate Democrats were led by a Grand Wizard for years, and I'm not talking about the 50's, I'm talking about the 21st Century.

My favorites though were when they showed white guys with scary looking guns.  The first picture showed one such person standing next to someone with a racist sign, insinuating of course he must be racist as well.  Then they showed another white guy with a similar gun but no sign but of course the implicatio was "same type of gun must also be a racist".  Then they showed someone else decked out in camoflauge with a scary gun but they only filmed him from the chest down, implication..just another scary, racist, white gun-nut.  Of course the next day when another film of the same man taken from a different angle turned up and it turned out he was actually African-American, it kind of poked a hole in the media's assumptions, but I'm sure that had nothing to do with why the media didn't show his skin color the day before.

4)  Don't know much about Tom Tancredo and again it's tough to make a determination based on a vague accusation.  Got a link?

5)  How does the belief that President Obama doesn't like White people make someone racist?  It may make them stupid, mis-informed, easily manipulated and any number of other things but it provides no basis for the belief they are racist?

6)  Most of this is covered by the same response as 5 but I'll try to address them more individually.  "He's not one of us"  WTF does that mean?  Again it's far too vague to have any real meaning...He's not an American?  a Capitalist?  What is he not one of?    

"He's a Muslim"  Again...Stupid, mis-informed, mal-adjusted  and racist are all possibilities but there is no proof that racist is the right explanation, in fact you're abusing your stock material and the other Liberals are going to chastise you for it.  Screaming racist is your fall back position when you're losing an argument, you don't break it out when you have the clear upper-hand like in this case.  

"He's not from here"... Don't mis-interpret this, I'm quite certain he is an American citizen but this is a bizarre one on many levels.  For one he could have put an end to this at any time by simply producing the BC when first asked to when registering for the NJ Democratic Primary but instead of spending $20 on a Notary which he probably wouldn't have actually had to spend because I'm sure he had Attorneys on staff, he instead spend tens of thousands of dollars to fight the NJ law requiring him to produce the BC.  In La. I have to produce a BC in order to get a Drivers License or to _register_ to vote but he can run for POTUS without one....that makes absolutely no sense.

Personally I think it was a brilliant campaign decision.  He knew that refusing to produce it, it would cause that small percentage of people who buy into any conspiracy to go absolutely apoplectic.  That wouldn't have really done much for him, it's probably less than 1% of the population but by keeping it out there every time someone questioned anything he did and accused him of doing anything a little shady then he could paint them with the same "Birther" brush.  

Again I do believe without question he is a U.S. citizen but I do not see how you can run for President without proving it, I do find that truly off the wall.

7)  As for "Barack the Magic Negro" I guess what you're saying is that you're really upset with African-American, L.A. Times columnist David Ehrenstein since he's the one who wrote and first sang the song.

And finally "respect for the office of the President", the last Democratic President destroyed all semblance of respectability for the office of POTUS when he decided to play "hide the cigar in the intern" under the Oval Office desk, tracing maps of the world to explain foreign policy on the covers of the bed in the Lincoln Bedroom while 5 women were under them and somewhat less destructive but still fairly tasteless threw pizza parties complete with beer and people propping their feet, sometimes shod sometimes bare, on tables where international treaties were signed while scarfing down Pepperoni with extra cheese and cans of Bud.  And of course there was the "Everyone grab a souvenir" ransacking of the White House and AF1 as they were leaving.

President Bush 43 tried to regain some measure of respectability where he could, like re-instituting the coat and tie policy but it's hard to make progress towards decorum and respect when members of the opposition party are constantly referring to you, not in private but on the floor of the House and Senate, as a Nazi, a moron, etc....


----------



## bayoubill

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



I don't hate liberals, per say...

I do, however, despise folks who think they know what's best for each and every one of the rest of us...

and it's been my experience that most such folks happen to be of the liberal persuasion...


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



I think the liberals have turned the United States into one of the largest welfare states in the world. They have created a system where thousands (if not millions) of people rape the system every day. People who are fully capable of working, but would rather sit on their ass all day and collect a check for the government. More kids? Why not? You get a bigger check from the government. Don't wanna pay full rent? Don't worry, you can get section 8 housing where you pay less than $20 a month for rent. It is absolute ridiculous the amount of money that is wasted on lazy no-good leeches in this country (and that goes for any race, creed, or color).


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Because you seem to be after EVERYTHING in the bill of rights.

9th Amendment - I always start with this, because it's where I have the most beef with the far left.
The Ninth Amendment states that your rights are derived from the Creator, endowed at birth, unalienable and unassailable. Furthermore, that the Constitution only enumerates a small portion of these pre-existing rights, and the our rights are even more fundamental than the Constitution.

Modern liberals try to push this idea of "Government" created rights, that the State creates rights, and may deny or disparage those rights. These are not rights, they are privileges. At the rate we're going, we're going to end up with a very small class of citizens who have all of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution - the filthy rich bankers and the politicians.

1st Amendment --> Occupy Wall Street declared terrorists (freedom of assembly/speech); internet censorship (and political forum manipulation) (freedom of press/speech); both parties are guilty on the religion issue, don't use religious reasons to tell people they can't have sex and can't have abortions (republicans), don't force people against their religion to pay for abortions (democrats).

2nd Amendment --> Read any of my threads, no point in discussing this here

3rd Amendment --> Spy Drone police state with non-lethal weapon technology to soon be equipped.

4th Amendment --> Patriot Act (not yet repealed), full access to anyone's financial records, no knock warrants

5th Amendment --> NDAA + Bush policies on steriods

6th Amendment --> Red Light cameras (where is my accuser), zero benefit for traffic accidents, both parties are at fault, this is the start of the cyber security state.

7th Amendment --> unaccountable taxation (polls for instance), both parties are at fault here, this is going to ramp up in the near cyber future (cyber poll taxes incoming to limit the information super highway)

8th Amendment --> punishment for crimes are too long (cruel and unusual) for generally minor offenses, both parties are at fault here

10th Amendment --> Every fucking national bill you guys pass tears up States rights.

Habaes Corpus --> I thought Obama was going to end the Bush era practice? Wtf happened? He intensified it. 1) Habaes Corpus can only be denied in times of Rebellion or Invasion (Invasion and War are DIFFERENT THINGS), to be in a state of invasion we must have a formal declaration of War from Congress, and the enemy must be on our shores. WWII was the last official war declaration.

Treason Due Process (Article III, Section 3) - ??? Obama tossed this out the window.

This is why.

The real question is why do liberals hate freedom? Why do you call yourself "Liberals" when you hate liberty? You should call yourself "Restrictionals"


----------



## JimBowie1958

Hate liberals? Nah, but I do hate the fucking trolls that pose as liberals because they think this is what is expected of them so they paroy yhe libral party line without a smidgeon of understanding of it.

They contradict themselves constantly, like claiming to be pro-choice on abortion yet not doing anything about Obama appointees who favor forced abortion, nor do they protest China's forced aborion policies. I guess Darfur is just so much more fashionable.

These jack asses cant discuss these things that they dont understand, like the old school librals like Humphrey or JFK. So they try to shout you down, trap you into getting banned,  repeat the same stupid lines over and over and over, and completely ignore what we do know from science and reason, because Truth is not their concern, only sucking up to the libtard establishment.

Take as another example the Jefferson-Hemmings controversy. 
Background DNA Study | Thomas Jefferson - Sally Hemings

While the DNA evidence ruled out T JEfferson being the father of any of Hemmings children except perhaps for Eston, the libtards ignore the science where it contradicts them and claims that Thomas fathered ALL of Hemings children! lol

And the whole conduct of the Nature articles title and content were concealed from one of the researchers who was misled about what the conclusion of the article would be, especially when he later found out that it was completely contrary to the DNA evidence.

But libtards in the media repeat this bullshit so consistently that anyone who has not taken the trouble to read BOTH sides of the controversy would never know that there was any doubt at all, much less absolute proof Thomas did not father any but perhaps one child, Eston.

This duplicity, fraud, shameless lying, slandering, ostracising, black listing, corruption and trechery are typical of the libtard groups from the leftwing 'civil rights' black leaders, to the gay mafia, to the closet commies and closted haters of our country and more. 

Real classic liberals are good folk, though I most often disagree with them. Ideological libtard fanatics can kiss my ass and go to hell.


----------



## editec

> Why do people hate Liberals?



Because nitwits need scapegoats?


----------



## squeeze berry

editec said:


> Why do people hate Liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because nitwits need scapegoats?
Click to expand...


Obama is the perfect example


----------



## peach174

People do not hate liberals.
What they do hate, is their ideology and how they dupe Americans into their failed ideas.

Liberal (progressive) ideology causes more poverty, inequality and injustice.

The more Government grows and spends the more it hurts the middle class and keeps the poor in poverty.

Social programs is not about equity or equality.
This is one of the biggest lies that many people buy into.

Social programs weakens & disempowers strong, self-reliant citizens, while strengthening & empowering weak, dependent citizens.
It shifts wealth from productive people (tax payers) to unproductive people(non tax payers)

This always leads to the downfall of the middle class.

Under socialism, for instance, the poor that live on government handouts have higher and higher standards of living with even amenities like air conditioning, cell phones and cable TV. Meanwhile productive middle-class people are crushed with taxes to pay for those amenities.  And then often the middle class cannot afford simple pleasures like cable TV, cell phones or air conditioning. 

That is why the middle class disappears under socialism/ communism, as it did in the Soviet Union. And why the whole population ends up poor  because the poor rise up as they are subsidized by the middle class, while the middle class sinks. And then they all become equal.

Equally poor, that is.

Indeed the equality of socialism is real. But it is a negative equality, not a positive one. And that is what the liberals never will tell you or explain ahead of time.

So indeed three separate groups on three economic levels prosper under socialism:

First, the poor prosper. Because if you have few skills and little education, discipline or ambition like many poor people, and you then are given a middle-class standard of living with food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education and other amenities, then that is indeed prosperous. And the money for this prosperity comes largely from the heavily-taxed, private-sector, wealth-producing middle class which struggles every day to have more skills, education, discipline and ambition.

Second, the bureaucratic government class prospers. They get ever more in pay, benefits and pensions. Unions allied with the Democrat party then protect the government class and harms the taxpayers, which is happening in liberal states today like California, New York and Illinois. That is why these states are becoming functionally bankrupt. Unions bankrupted many private industries and companies throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Now unions are bankrupting taxpayers and states via the government.

Today government workers have higher standards of living than private-sector workers. This is an intentional outcome of socialism. This comes about through heavy taxation of private-sector, wealth-producing citizens and the transfer of that wealth to the government class. 

And while there are good people in the government, many government workers often have been some of the least ambitious and least competent people in the workforce, which is why they migrate to government jobs in the first place. You know the old story take the civil service exam or close enough for government work

The third group to prosper are super-wealthy but often completely unproductive people on the Democrat left. Like The Al Gore and George Soros types.They make plenty of money but don't produce any amount of real employees just a few

These groups then give the Dems the votes that they need.
The poor
The Government workers
The Super Wealthy


----------



## rightwinger

Jesus was a liberal

Nobody hates Jesus


----------



## The2ndAmendment

rightwinger said:


> Jesus was a liberal
> 
> Nobody hates Jesus



Jesus preached that rights came from Government and not from God?



> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage *others retained by the people.*





> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights*,





> We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, *appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world* for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States





> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, *and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,* do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



Natural rights are preexisting, meaning that they are not granted by laws or the state, rather States and Laws are created in order to guarantee those rights. And Government is legitimate only if it protects those rights and rules with the consent of the governed.

Now the Left (liberal, progressive, socialist, call it what you will) Have always been in conflict with this doctrine. And not just because most of them are atheistic. They have always felt that there are no absolutes, therefore everything in the world must be viewed only in it&#8217;s proper context. everything is relative.

This is of course a path to disaster. If, at any time the populace concedes that the Government has all of the rights and merely bestows them as it sees fit then it is a slippery slop down to tyranny.

As usual the roll of the lefty is to destroy. They would rather destroy our rights and replace it with something much much less; such things are called Privileges, instead of rights. This system always degenerates into a plutocracy.


----------



## peach174




----------



## rightwinger

The2ndAmendment said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus was a liberal
> 
> Nobody hates Jesus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus preached that rights came from Government and not from God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage *others retained by the people.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, *appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world* for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, *and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,* do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Damn....Those liberal founding fathers really knew their shit


----------



## poet

Avatar4321 said:


> I don't hate liberals. BTW they are progressives. They just stole the liberal moniker when people realized how nuts progressives were.
> 
> I just want them to stop taking my money and interfering in my life. That's all.



I'm just taking a wild guess, but I'm thinking you don't have any money (worth talking about), and you're responsible for your own life, are you not, interference aside? Do you need a waaaaaambulance?


----------



## The2ndAmendment

rightwinger said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus was a liberal
> 
> Nobody hates Jesus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus preached that rights came from Government and not from God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage *others retained by the people.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights*,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, *appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world* for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, *and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,* do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural rights are preexisting, meaning that they are not granted by laws or the state, rather States and Laws are created in order to guarantee those rights. And Government is legitimate only if it protects those rights and rules with the consent of the governed.
> 
> Now the Left (liberal, progressive, socialist, call it what you will) Have always been in conflict with this doctrine. And not just because most of them are atheistic. They have always felt that there are no absolutes, therefore everything in the world must be viewed only in it&#8217;s proper context. everything is relative.
> 
> This is of course a path to disaster. If, at any time the populace concedes that the Government has all of the rights and merely bestows them as it sees fit then it is a slippery slop down to tyranny.
> 
> As usual the roll of the lefty is to destroy. They would rather destroy our rights and replace it with something much much less; such things are called Privileges, instead of rights. This system always degenerates into a plutocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn....Those liberal founding fathers really knew their shit
Click to expand...


The Founding Fathers were Classical Liberals, after John Locke.

Would you care to tell us where modern liberals derive their philosophical teachings?


----------



## Darkwind

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


If you cannot see the depth of hatred and contempt that is exhibited by the progressives on this forum for not only conservatives, but for ANYONE who dares speak of a different view of life than theirs, then there is no use at all for My pointing out that you are not seeing things as clearly as you could.


----------



## rightwinger

Conservatives love Liberals

They always manage to userp liberal ideals about 30 years after the fact and then claim it as their own


----------



## The2ndAmendment

rightwinger said:


> Conservatives love Liberals
> 
> They always manage to userp liberal ideals about 30 years after the fact and then claim it as their own



So you haven't answered the question:

Where do modern liberals derive their philosophies from? (The answer is obviously NOT John Locke, a classical liberal)


----------



## rightwinger

The2ndAmendment said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus preached that rights came from Government and not from God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are preexisting, meaning that they are not granted by laws or the state, rather States and Laws are created in order to guarantee those rights. And Government is legitimate only if it protects those rights and rules with the consent of the governed.
> 
> Now the Left (liberal, progressive, socialist, call it what you will) Have always been in conflict with this doctrine. And not just because most of them are atheistic. They have always felt that there are no absolutes, therefore everything in the world must be viewed only in its proper context. everything is relative.
> 
> This is of course a path to disaster. If, at any time the populace concedes that the Government has all of the rights and merely bestows them as it sees fit then it is a slippery slop down to tyranny.
> 
> As usual the roll of the lefty is to destroy. They would rather destroy our rights and replace it with something much much less; such things are called Privileges, instead of rights. This system always degenerates into a plutocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn....Those liberal founding fathers really knew their shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers were Classical Liberals, after John Locke.
> 
> Would you care to tell us where modern liberals derive their philosophical teachings?
Click to expand...


Not if you asked them

They looked at the issues of the day and applied liberal methodologies to address them. We all know conservatives of the day supported the crown

Of course, we liberals were allowed to tar and feather conservatives back then

Ohhhhh....for the good ole days!


----------



## rightwinger

The2ndAmendment said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives love Liberals
> 
> They always manage to userp liberal ideals about 30 years after the fact and then claim it as their own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you haven't answered the question:
> 
> Where do modern liberals derive their philosophies from? (The answer is obviously NOT John Locke, a classical liberal)
Click to expand...


Answered throughtout the thread

Mine is ....Truth, Justice and the American Way


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives love Liberals
> 
> They always manage to userp liberal ideals about 30 years after the fact and then claim it as their own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you haven't answered the question:
> 
> Where do modern liberals derive their philosophies from? (The answer is obviously NOT John Locke, a classical liberal)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answered throughtout the thread
> 
> Mine is ....Truth, Justice and the American Way
Click to expand...


Truth?  obama has not told the truth about anything in his entire political career,  neither has Reid, Pelosi, Maher, Sharpton, Ayers, or any of the other liberals

Justice?    Social justice?  taking from someone who earned it and giving it to someone who did nothing but vote for obama---------that justice?

The american way?   when did marxism become the american way?   when did high taxation become the american way?  when did millions on food stamps become the american way?   when did high unemployment and huge national debt become the american way?

Liberalism is destroying our economy and our culture every day,   and half of the population does not give a shit as long as their govt cheese comes every month.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

rightwinger said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives love Liberals
> 
> They always manage to userp liberal ideals about 30 years after the fact and then claim it as their own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you haven't answered the question:
> 
> Where do modern liberals derive their philosophies from? (The answer is obviously NOT John Locke, a classical liberal)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answered throughtout the thread
> 
> Mine is ....Truth, Justice and the American Way
Click to expand...


John Locke is the American way. Your ideologies are not compatible with John Locke. They are however compatible with this excerpt:


> Two of the most noted and influential modern political thinkers are John Locke and Karl Marx. John Locke was an English philosopher who was famous for his use of empiricism and his social contract theories. Karl Marx was a German political thinker who was famous for his theories regarding class struggle and is well known as the father of communism. These two thinkers had many conflicting ideas and philosophies. One topic that they had divergent views on was whether private property was a natural right or not.
> 
> John Locke that that private property was a natural right, and one of the most important ones at that. One of Locke's most famous quotes is that all men have the right to "life, liberty and property." Locke discusses his theories of property in his Second Treatise of Government. Locke believes that god gave man the earth to hold in common, but when a man adds his labor to the earth it becomes his private property. When a man plows a field than the field becomes his, as well as the fruits of that land. Whatever man adds his labor to becomes private property for their exclusive use.
> 
> In Locke's eyes the main purpose of the government is too protect individuals private property. In a state of nature there is no way for each individual to ensure that their property remains safe from every one else. Once conflict over private property starts to occur the people come together and use to their reason to draft a social contract that will protect their property. Locke also says that before the introduction of private property men live in an egalitarian state of nature, but with the introduction of private property it caused a hierarchy to form. it is because of private property that men are forced to form a contract amongst themselves and craft a government. (Locke: Government)
> 
> Karl Marx's views towards private are quite different than those of John Locke. In his major work the Communist Manifesto he states that "*the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.*" (Marx) Marx believed that the bourgeoisie controlled all of the profit creating property and used it to enslave the proletariat, or working class. Marx disagrees with John Locke's theory of property, Marx argues that workers labor doesn't grant them any property whereas the capitalist class has all the property but does no labor.* In the Communist Manifesto it is argued that labor has been used throughout history to repress and exploit the working class and that the only things that change are the structures of the exploitation.*
> 
> Both Locke and Marx's views of private property have been highly influential. John Locke's theories of property have been most influential to capitalist thinkers* whereas Karl Marx's work have been most influential to communist and socialist thinkers and governments.* The best way to study the way that these two different ideology work in application is too look at the two case studies that best exemplify the divergent theories, namely the United States and the Soviet Union.
> 
> *The founders of the United States were highly influenced by the thinking of Locke when they wrote their constitution.* In the Fourth amendment in the Bill of Rights it states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "* This amendment [4th Amendment] guarantees that private property will be protected from the government. *Also, obviously, it is against the law for any one to steal or hamper with anyone else's private property. John Locke would probably be happy with this system because it fulfills his government's basic purpose of protecting private property.
> 
> In 1917 a group of revolutionaries called the Bolsheviks overthrew the Russian Czar so they could put in a Communist government in place. The person whose thinking was most influential to the revolution, and the government that they put into place, was *Karl Marx. In the Soviet System all private property and means of production were, theoretically, owned by the people. *How this system worked was the Communist party *controlled the industry and private property in place of the people. U*nder this system it just perpetuated the system of the working class and the bourgeoisie, e*xcept now the bourgeoisie were the members of the Communist Party who controlled and exploited the workers who they were supposedly in league with and representing. All in all John Locke's ideas about private property has fared better than Karl Marx's in practical application.*
> 
> Works Cited
> 
> "Locke: Social Order." Philosophy Pages. 30 Apr. 2007.
> Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. 30 Apr. 2007.


----------



## francoHFW

OP- Why do conservatives (hater dupes) think THEY are the people. Brainwashed morons!

All your "facts" at this point are Pub propaganda and total BS.

Liberal ideas are based on FACTS and long research and history, not BS "common sense" and what a huge BS propaganda machine  paid for by megarich greedy idiots inculcate in us...see sig pp3, "banning some guns and regulation is unconstitutional, Obama gutted Workfare and Medicare, etc etc..."


----------



## Redfish

I don't hate liberals, I feel sorry for them.   Their genetic defect has been sceintifically proven.  All liberals have a defective gene known as DRD 4 (look it up).   It blocks rational logical thought from being processed by their brains.   We can only hope that medical science will find a cure,   but alas, under obamacare that is not possible,  but fear not, illegals will get free medical care.


----------



## Redfish

francoHFW said:


> OP- Why do conservatives (hater dupes) think THEY are the people. Brainwashed morons!
> 
> All your "facts" at this point are Pub propaganda and total BS.
> 
> Liberal ideas are based on FACTS and long research and history, not BS "common sense" and what a huge BS propaganda machine  paid for by megarich greedy idiots inculcate in us...see sig pp3, "banning some guns and regulation is unconstitutional, Obama gutted Workfare and Medicare, etc etc..."



obama took 500B from medicare to fund obamacare,  he cancelled the medicare advantage program.  Now millions of seniors will no longer be able to afford a medicare supplement.   

Do you have any idea what a piece of dogshit the obamacare bill really is?

It puts a tax on cruthes, hearing aids, and  sporting equipment.   Don't believe it,  go to Bass pro or Cabelas, and look at the healthcare tax on the bottom of your receipt.


----------



## thereisnospoon

rightwinger said:


> Jesus was a liberal
> 
> Nobody hates Jesus



Wanna bet?
Christianity is vilified by the left as an oppressive religion.


----------



## francoHFW

Redfish said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Why do conservatives (hater dupes) think THEY are the people. Brainwashed morons!
> 
> All your "facts" at this point are Pub propaganda and total BS.
> 
> Liberal ideas are based on FACTS and long research and history, not BS "common sense" and what a huge BS propaganda machine  paid for by megarich greedy idiots inculcate in us...see sig pp3, "banning some guns and regulation is unconstitutional, Obama gutted Workfare and Medicare, etc etc..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> obama took 500B from medicare to fund obamacare,  he cancelled the medicare advantage program.  Now millions of seniors will no longer be able to afford a medicare supplement.
> 
> Do you have any idea what a piece of dogshit the obamacare bill really is?
> 
> It puts a tax on cruthes, hearing aids, and  sporting equipment.   Don't believe it,  go to Bass pro or Cabelas, and look at the healthcare tax on the bottom of your receipt.
Click to expand...


The Ryan Plan takes the same money out. Advantage is a RW giveaway to the well off. 2% tax - BFD.

Romneycare and every other modern country prove it works great- a GOP plan. The system we have now was a disaster that had to be fixed- worst results in the modern world at twice the price. Pubs proved they'll NEVER vote out the big scam, dupe.


----------



## francoHFW

thereisnospoon said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus was a liberal
> 
> Nobody hates Jesus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna bet?
> Christianity is vilified by the left as an oppressive religion.
Click to expand...


FUNDAMENTALIST christianity and reactionary catholicism, dingbat.


----------



## thereisnospoon

poet said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate liberals. BTW they are progressives. They just stole the liberal moniker when people realized how nuts progressives were.
> 
> I just want them to stop taking my money and interfering in my life. That's all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just taking a wild guess, but I'm thinking you don't have any money (worth talking about), and you're responsible for your own life, are you not, interference aside? Do you need a waaaaaambulance?
Click to expand...


That is an incredibly stupid post.
Not surprised it came from an entitlement minded lib such as yourself.


----------



## francoHFW

Redfish said:


> I don't hate liberals, I feel sorry for them.   Their genetic defect has been sceintifically proven.  All liberals have a defective gene known as DRD 4 (look it up).   It blocks rational logical thought from being processed by their brains.   We can only hope that medical science will find a cure,   but alas, under obamacare that is not possible,  but fear not, illegals will get free medical care.



DRD4? Another BS Pub propaganda, for dupes only- the liberal theory.

Illegals, thanks to Pub refusal of a good SS ID card, 90+% of males work, 65% pay taxes, 35% own homes. NOW they'll get good CHEAPER care and pay something instead of free ER care- the most expensive kind.


----------



## nitroz

Because they are right winged. It's their way or the high way.

They are only in it for themselves and their beliefs.


----------



## thereisnospoon

francoHFW said:


> OP- Why do conservatives (hater dupes) think THEY are the people. Brainwashed morons!
> 
> All your "facts" at this point are Pub propaganda and total BS.
> 
> Liberal ideas are based on FACTS and long research and history, not BS "common sense" and what a huge BS propaganda machine  paid for by megarich greedy idiots inculcate in us...see sig pp3, "banning some guns and regulation is unconstitutional, Obama gutted Workfare and Medicare, etc etc..."


Ah...A lib finally admits his ideology is NOT based in common sense.


----------



## Redfish

francoHFW said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Why do conservatives (hater dupes) think THEY are the people. Brainwashed morons!
> 
> All your "facts" at this point are Pub propaganda and total BS.
> 
> Liberal ideas are based on FACTS and long research and history, not BS "common sense" and what a huge BS propaganda machine  paid for by megarich greedy idiots inculcate in us...see sig pp3, "banning some guns and regulation is unconstitutional, Obama gutted Workfare and Medicare, etc etc..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> obama took 500B from medicare to fund obamacare,  he cancelled the medicare advantage program.  Now millions of seniors will no longer be able to afford a medicare supplement.
> 
> Do you have any idea what a piece of dogshit the obamacare bill really is?
> 
> It puts a tax on cruthes, hearing aids, and  sporting equipment.   Don't believe it,  go to Bass pro or Cabelas, and look at the healthcare tax on the bottom of your receipt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ryan Plan takes the same money out. Advantage is a RW giveaway to the well off. 2% tax - BFD.
> 
> Romneycare and every other modern country prove it works great- a GOP plan. The system we have now was a disaster that had to be fixed- worst results in the modern world at twice the price. Pubs proved they'll NEVER vote out the big scam, dupe.
Click to expand...


No one in the USA was being denied healthcare before obamacare,  NO ONE.   Even those here illegally were getting free medical care---------there was no healthcare crisis------------If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I don't recall saying that I agreed with that provision of the Ryan plan.   Medicare advantage is a great program for seniors,  plus it saves money for the govt, and -------------------------------------------and here's the problem liberals have with it,  the insurance companies booked a small profit on it.   and we all know that profit is EVIL.

as to the tax on medical devices and sports equipment,  even many democrats see that it is wrong and are trying to kill it.    Too bad no one had time to actually read the piece of shit bill before it was passed.


----------



## francoHFW

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you haven't answered the question:
> 
> Where do modern liberals derive their philosophies from? (The answer is obviously NOT John Locke, a classical liberal)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answered throughtout the thread
> 
> Mine is ....Truth, Justice and the American Way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth?  obama has not told the truth about anything in his entire political career,  neither has Reid, Pelosi, Maher, Sharpton, Ayers, or any of the other liberals
> 
> Justice?    Social justice?  taking from someone who earned it and giving it to someone who did nothing but vote for obama---------that justice?
> 
> The american way?   when did marxism become the american way?   when did high taxation become the american way?  when did millions on food stamps become the american way?   when did high unemployment and huge national debt become the american way?
> 
> Liberalism is destroying our economy and our culture every day,   and half of the population does not give a shit as long as their govt cheese comes every month.
Click to expand...


What a pile of BS propaganda, dupe- change the channel.

No Marxism- a GOP health reform, 5% higher taxes for the bloated rich who've tripled their wealth while the nonrich and the country go to hell under voodoo, dupe.

Thanks for the DEPRESSION, GOP- that's why food stamps and UE are high. Also 3 1/2 years of mindless obstruction. NOW ENDING, DESPITE the GOP.


----------



## Redfish

francoHFW said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate liberals, I feel sorry for them.   Their genetic defect has been sceintifically proven.  All liberals have a defective gene known as DRD 4 (look it up).   It blocks rational logical thought from being processed by their brains.   We can only hope that medical science will find a cure,   but alas, under obamacare that is not possible,  but fear not, illegals will get free medical care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DRD4? Another BS Pub propaganda, for dupes only- the liberal theory.
> 
> Illegals, thanks to Pub refusal of a good SS ID card, 90+% of males work, 65% pay taxes, 35% own homes. NOW they'll get good CHEAPER care and pay something instead of free ER care- the most expensive kind.
Click to expand...


DRD4 is real.  Look it up if you doubt me.  you obviously have it.   I feel sorry for you.

obamacare will increase the cost of medical care for everyone,  premiums are already going up,  doctors are leaving, nurses are leaving,  hospitals are closing.   its going to destroy the best healthcare system in the history of the world, and you fools are applauding it.   pathetic.


----------



## thereisnospoon

francoHFW said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Why do conservatives (hater dupes) think THEY are the people. Brainwashed morons!
> 
> All your "facts" at this point are Pub propaganda and total BS.
> 
> Liberal ideas are based on FACTS and long research and history, not BS "common sense" and what a huge BS propaganda machine  paid for by megarich greedy idiots inculcate in us...see sig pp3, "banning some guns and regulation is unconstitutional, Obama gutted Workfare and Medicare, etc etc..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> obama took 500B from medicare to fund obamacare,  he cancelled the medicare advantage program.  Now millions of seniors will no longer be able to afford a medicare supplement.
> 
> Do you have any idea what a piece of dogshit the obamacare bill really is?
> 
> It puts a tax on cruthes, hearing aids, and  sporting equipment.   Don't believe it,  go to Bass pro or Cabelas, and look at the healthcare tax on the bottom of your receipt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ryan Plan takes the same money out. Advantage is a RW giveaway to the well off. 2% tax - BFD.
> 
> Romneycare and every other modern country prove it works great- a GOP plan. The system we have now was a disaster that had to be fixed- worst results in the modern world at twice the price. Pubs proved they'll NEVER vote out the big scam, dupe.
Click to expand...


Class envy. "The well off"..Every time one you libs utter those or similar words, your argument turns to shit.
A 2% tax that is passed along to the consumer. 
So after state and local sales taxes, the government grabs an extra 2% just to fuck us a little more. And for what? Insurance premiums will go through the roof once Obamacare kicks in next January. 
Many medium sized companies will be forced to either lay workers off or eliminate their positions. Some may simply close their doors. 
Obamacare is a job killer. THAT is a fact.
Don't think so? Read THIS...
Bakery Owners: Obamacare Will Cut Our Profits In Half


----------



## Redfish

francoHFW said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answered throughtout the thread
> 
> Mine is ....Truth, Justice and the American Way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth?  obama has not told the truth about anything in his entire political career,  neither has Reid, Pelosi, Maher, Sharpton, Ayers, or any of the other liberals
> 
> Justice?    Social justice?  taking from someone who earned it and giving it to someone who did nothing but vote for obama---------that justice?
> 
> The american way?   when did marxism become the american way?   when did high taxation become the american way?  when did millions on food stamps become the american way?   when did high unemployment and huge national debt become the american way?
> 
> Liberalism is destroying our economy and our culture every day,   and half of the population does not give a shit as long as their govt cheese comes every month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a pile of BS propaganda, dupe- change the channel.
> 
> No Marxism- a GOP health reform, 5% higher taxes for the bloated rich who've tripled their wealth while the nonrich and the country go to hell under voodoo, dupe.
> 
> Thanks for the DEPRESSION, GOP- that's why food stamps and UE are high. Also 3 1/2 years of mindless obstruction. NOW ENDING, DESPITE the GOP.
Click to expand...


yeah, right its all about punishing the evil successful rich.   punish the bastards, take their hard earned money,   give it to the lazy.   

Marx-------"from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"    can you honestly say that obama is not a marxist?


----------



## francoHFW

Redfish said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> obama took 500B from medicare to fund obamacare,  he cancelled the medicare advantage program.  Now millions of seniors will no longer be able to afford a medicare supplement.
> 
> Do you have any idea what a piece of dogshit the obamacare bill really is?
> 
> It puts a tax on cruthes, hearing aids, and  sporting equipment.   Don't believe it,  go to Bass pro or Cabelas, and look at the healthcare tax on the bottom of your receipt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ryan Plan takes the same money out. Advantage is a RW giveaway to the well off. 2% tax - BFD.
> 
> Romneycare and every other modern country prove it works great- a GOP plan. The system we have now was a disaster that had to be fixed- worst results in the modern world at twice the price. Pubs proved they'll NEVER vote out the big scam, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one in the USA was being denied healthcare before obamacare,  NO ONE.   Even those here illegally were getting free medical care---------there was no healthcare crisis------------If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
> 
> I don't recall saying that I agreed with that provision of the Ryan plan.   Medicare advantage is a great program for seniors,  plus it saves money for the govt, and -------------------------------------------and here's the problem liberals have with it,  the insurance companies booked a small profit on it.   and we all know that profit is EVIL.
> 
> as to the tax on medical devices and sports equipment,  even many democrats see that it is wrong and are trying to kill it.    Too bad no one had time to actually read the piece of shit bill before it was passed.
Click to expand...


A GIVEAWAY, and a broken system costing 18% GDP, with 45k DEAD a year and 750k bankruptcies, ruining our competitiveness. Open your eyes, dupe.


----------



## Redfish

francoHFW said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ryan Plan takes the same money out. Advantage is a RW giveaway to the well off. 2% tax - BFD.
> 
> Romneycare and every other modern country prove it works great- a GOP plan. The system we have now was a disaster that had to be fixed- worst results in the modern world at twice the price. Pubs proved they'll NEVER vote out the big scam, dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one in the USA was being denied healthcare before obamacare,  NO ONE.   Even those here illegally were getting free medical care---------there was no healthcare crisis------------If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
> 
> I don't recall saying that I agreed with that provision of the Ryan plan.   Medicare advantage is a great program for seniors,  plus it saves money for the govt, and -------------------------------------------and here's the problem liberals have with it,  the insurance companies booked a small profit on it.   and we all know that profit is EVIL.
> 
> as to the tax on medical devices and sports equipment,  even many democrats see that it is wrong and are trying to kill it.    Too bad no one had time to actually read the piece of shit bill before it was passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A GIVEAWAY, and a broken system costing 18% GDP, with 45k DEAD a year and 750k bankruptcies, ruining our competitiveness. Open your eyes, dupe.
Click to expand...


care to prove that every one of those bankrupcies was due to medical expenses?   Not one of them had to do with running up credit card debt?  not one?

you post bullshit talking points like they are fact,   you are a LIAR, just like your kenyan messiah.


----------



## thereisnospoon

francoHFW said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus was a liberal
> 
> Nobody hates Jesus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna bet?
> Christianity is vilified by the left as an oppressive religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FUNDAMENTALIST christianity and reactionary catholicism, dingbat.
Click to expand...


Right....Try that shit with someone else. 
In liberal circles it is perfectly acceptable to insult, make fun of and impugn Christians. 
Ass fucker


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you haven't answered the question:
> 
> Where do modern liberals derive their philosophies from? (The answer is obviously NOT John Locke, a classical liberal)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answered throughtout the thread
> 
> Mine is ....Truth, Justice and the American Way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth?  obama has not told the truth about anything in his entire political career,  neither has Reid, Pelosi, Maher, Sharpton, Ayers, or any of the other liberals
> 
> Justice?    Social justice?  taking from someone who earned it and giving it to someone who did nothing but vote for obama---------that justice?
> 
> The american way?   when did marxism become the american way?   when did high taxation become the american way?  when did millions on food stamps become the american way?   when did high unemployment and huge national debt become the american way?
> 
> Liberalism is destroying our economy and our culture every day,   and half of the population does not give a shit as long as their govt cheese comes every month.
Click to expand...


Yes, my friend.....Liberals

Defenders of freedom
Protectors of the innocent
Enemy of those who plan to do harm to our country

Truth, Justice....and the American Way


----------



## rightwinger

The Statue of Liberty







A gift from liberal France to liberal America

Enjoy your Liberty?  Thank a Liberal


----------



## Billo_Really

I'm a liberal and nobody hates me.


----------



## peach174

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answered throughtout the thread
> 
> Mine is ....Truth, Justice and the American Way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth?  obama has not told the truth about anything in his entire political career,  neither has Reid, Pelosi, Maher, Sharpton, Ayers, or any of the other liberals
> 
> Justice?    Social justice?  taking from someone who earned it and giving it to someone who did nothing but vote for obama---------that justice?
> 
> The american way?   when did marxism become the american way?   when did high taxation become the american way?  when did millions on food stamps become the american way?   when did high unemployment and huge national debt become the american way?
> 
> Liberalism is destroying our economy and our culture every day,   and half of the population does not give a shit as long as their govt cheese comes every month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, my friend.....Liberals
> 
> Defenders of freedom
> Protectors of the innocent
> Enemy of those who plan to do harm to our country
> 
> Truth, Justice....and the American Way
Click to expand...



As long as that freedom is liberal and not conservative
As long as the innocent are born, but not the unborn innocent fetus.
Liberals are the ones doing harm to our contry. Keeping the poor in poverty and bringing the middle class down by taking taxes from them, to bring up the status of the poor.


----------



## francoHFW

See the brainwashed haters go batshit when confronted with facts. Yes 750k bankruptcies due to medical care- and 2/3- 3/4 HAVE INSURANCE. That's your GOP scam of a health system. Change the channel and get some reality. Better yet, read a book fer chrissake.


----------



## rightwinger

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth?  obama has not told the truth about anything in his entire political career,  neither has Reid, Pelosi, Maher, Sharpton, Ayers, or any of the other liberals
> 
> Justice?    Social justice?  taking from someone who earned it and giving it to someone who did nothing but vote for obama---------that justice?
> 
> The american way?   when did marxism become the american way?   when did high taxation become the american way?  when did millions on food stamps become the american way?   when did high unemployment and huge national debt become the american way?
> 
> Liberalism is destroying our economy and our culture every day,   and half of the population does not give a shit as long as their govt cheese comes every month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, my friend.....Liberals
> 
> Defenders of freedom
> Protectors of the innocent
> Enemy of those who plan to do harm to our country
> 
> Truth, Justice....and the American Way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As long as that freedom is liberal and not conservative
> As long as the innocent are born, but not the unborn innocent fetus.
> Liberals are the ones doing harm to our contry. Keeping the poor in poverty and bringing the middle class down by taking taxes from them, to bring up the status of the poor.
Click to expand...


Liberals founded this country and have given you the freedoms you enjoy

Feel free to thank them


----------



## peach174

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, my friend.....Liberals
> 
> Defenders of freedom
> Protectors of the innocent
> Enemy of those who plan to do harm to our country
> 
> Truth, Justice....and the American Way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as that freedom is liberal and not conservative
> As long as the innocent are born, but not the unborn innocent fetus.
> Liberals are the ones doing harm to our contry. Keeping the poor in poverty and bringing the middle class down by taking taxes from them, to bring up the status of the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals founded this country and have given you the freedoms you enjoy
> 
> Feel free to thank them
Click to expand...


Actual true liberals yes.
Social Liberals no way. These are the ones I am talking about.


----------



## francoHFW

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth?  obama has not told the truth about anything in his entire political career,  neither has Reid, Pelosi, Maher, Sharpton, Ayers, or any of the other liberals
> 
> Justice?    Social justice?  taking from someone who earned it and giving it to someone who did nothing but vote for obama---------that justice?
> 
> The american way?   when did marxism become the american way?   when did high taxation become the american way?  when did millions on food stamps become the american way?   when did high unemployment and huge national debt become the american way?
> 
> Liberalism is destroying our economy and our culture every day,   and half of the population does not give a shit as long as their govt cheese comes every month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, my friend.....Liberals
> 
> Defenders of freedom
> Protectors of the innocent
> Enemy of those who plan to do harm to our country
> 
> Truth, Justice....and the American Way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As long as that freedom is liberal and not conservative
> As long as the innocent are born, but not the unborn innocent fetus.
> Liberals are the ones doing harm to our contry. Keeping the poor in poverty and bringing the middle class down by taking taxes from them, to bring up the status of the poor.
Click to expand...


Free BC = Freedom and end of most abortions, dupes. Voodoo killed the nonrich and the country- see sig pp1 and


----------



## francoHFW

Home
 About
 RSS : Posts Comments Email Fact Left
Facts To Counteract Conservative NoiseHome
 Defense
 War Economics
 Taxes Energy
 Oil and Gas Humor
 Media
 Blogging Politics
 Congress Demographics Polling and Ratings Republicans Corruption Recommended
 Science
 Global Warming Medicine Uncategorized
   Written on March 28, 2011 at 12:08 pm by elfish 
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Filed under Economics no comments 
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers. 

Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn&#8217;t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor&#8217;s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105%  &#8211; Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 =  96%
2007 =  92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% &#8211; Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% &#8211; Reagan
1982 = 11.2% &#8211; Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% &#8211; Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 =  6%
1990 =  3%
2000 =  2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 &#8211; Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = PrudentBear
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States--March 7, 2013
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = Reagan Revolution Home To Roost ? In Charts


&#8592; Next post Previous post &#8594; 
Subscribe / Share


Article by elfish
 Authors bio is coming up shortly. 
Read 17 articles by elfish 
It's very calm over here, why not leave a comment? 
Leave a Reply
Click here to cancel reply. 
Name (required) 


Mail (will not be published) (required) 


Website 






 Notify me of followup comments via e-mail 


Subscribe

Tags
Meta
Log in 
Entries RSS 
Comments RSS 
WordPress.org 
Categories
Defense 
War 
Economics 
Taxes 
Energy 
Oil and Gas 
Humor 
Media 
Blogging 
Politics 
Congress 
Demographics 
Polling and Ratings 
Republicans 
Corruption 
Recommended 
Science 
Global Warming 
Medicine 
Uncategorized 


Copyright © Fact Left | Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS) Theme SWIFT by Satish Gandham, a product of SwiftThemes.Com 
powered by WordPress [Back to top &#8593; ]


----------



## Wyatt earp

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, my friend.....Liberals
> 
> Defenders of freedom
> Protectors of the innocent
> Enemy of those who plan to do harm to our country
> 
> Truth, Justice....and the American Way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as that freedom is liberal and not conservative
> As long as the innocent are born, but not the unborn innocent fetus.
> Liberals are the ones doing harm to our contry. Keeping the poor in poverty and bringing the middle class down by taking taxes from them, to bring up the status of the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals founded this country and have given you the freedoms you enjoy
> 
> Feel free to thank them
Click to expand...


I am all for John F. Kennedy . "ask not what your country could do for you...." liberal,  the liberal today? no way in hell....


----------



## rightwinger

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as that freedom is liberal and not conservative
> As long as the innocent are born, but not the unborn innocent fetus.
> Liberals are the ones doing harm to our contry. Keeping the poor in poverty and bringing the middle class down by taking taxes from them, to bring up the status of the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals founded this country and have given you the freedoms you enjoy
> 
> Feel free to thank them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actual true liberals yes.
> Social Liberals no way. These are the ones I am talking about.
Click to expand...


All men are created equal was the biggest social legislation in history

It changed the world


----------



## yidnar

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


we hate them because of shit like this !!


----------



## rightwinger

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as that freedom is liberal and not conservative
> As long as the innocent are born, but not the unborn innocent fetus.
> Liberals are the ones doing harm to our contry. Keeping the poor in poverty and bringing the middle class down by taking taxes from them, to bring up the status of the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals founded this country and have given you the freedoms you enjoy
> 
> Feel free to thank them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am all for John F. Kennedy . "ask not what your country could do for you...." liberal,  the liberal today? no way in hell....
Click to expand...


Ask not what your country can do for you was a call for public service not a condemnation of public welfare


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals founded this country and have given you the freedoms you enjoy
> 
> Feel free to thank them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am all for John F. Kennedy . "ask not what your country could do for you...." liberal,  the liberal today? no way in hell....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask not what your country can do for you was a call for public service not a condemnation of public welfare
Click to expand...


It was BOTH.  you don't know much about Kennedy do you?


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am all for John F. Kennedy . "ask not what your country could do for you...." liberal,  the liberal today? no way in hell....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask not what your country can do for you was a call for public service not a condemnation of public welfare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was BOTH.  you don't know much about Kennedy do you?
Click to expand...


Kennedy had no problem with helping those who need help


----------



## theHawk

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.




People hate liberals because they hate LIARS.  And that is exactly what liberals are.  Sometimes they tell half truths, omit important facts in order to distort the narrative in their favor, or of course just outright lie.

Take the start of your own post for example:



> _The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals. _



I guess you're not baffled by any of the thousands of angry, hate filled posts by liberals directed toward us conservatives every day on this forum.  Again distortion by omission.

So, thanks for demonstrating why people don't like liberals like you.


----------



## tooAlive

I see you're from Finland.

What's your definition of Liberal? Chances are we're not talking about the same ideologies.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask not what your country can do for you was a call for public service not a condemnation of public welfare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was BOTH.  you don't know much about Kennedy do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy had no problem with helping those who need help
Click to expand...


neither do 99% of the people in this country.    the key word being "need".   

no one "needs" generational welfare.   Yes, help those who really need help, those who cannot take care of themselves due to physical on mental problems.   But if you are able bodied, take care of yourself, unless you like being a slave to the govt.


----------



## whitehall

The post is proof that liberals are nothing but whiners.


----------



## Dutch

Conservatives will be satisfied if we return to the economic standards of the 1890's. And as they and their children and grandchildren head off to work for 2.50 an hour at some sweatshop with no health and safety standards, they will look up to their robber baron bosses and insist that if they work hard enough that will be them someday.


----------



## Mac1958

.

I remain amazed at how many people feel hate to begin with.

Pretty low standards for such a strong emotion.

.


----------



## peach174

Dutch said:


> Conservatives will be satisfied if we return to the economic standards of the 1890's. And as they and their children and grandchildren head off to work for 2.50 an hour at some sweatshop with no health and safety standards, they will look up to their robber baron bosses and insist that if they work hard enough that will be them someday.



That is not true at all and you know it.
No one wants go back to that type of shit nor does Conservatives want everyone drinking dirty water.
We want some common sense back in our government.
Our three largest entitlement programs really need to be reformed and waste, fraud and abuse needs to be eliminated.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Redfish said:


> I don't hate liberals, I feel sorry for them.   Their genetic defect has been sceintifically proven.  All liberals have a defective gene known as DRD 4 (look it up).   It blocks rational logical thought from being processed by their brains.   We can only hope that medical science will find a cure,   but alas, under obamacare that is not possible,  but fear not, illegals will get free medical care.



What gene makes nutballs so hilariously... nutty? 
Is it the gene that rejects science in favor of creationism?


----------



## Rozman

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask not what your country can do for you was a call for public service not a condemnation of public welfare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was BOTH.  you don't know much about Kennedy do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy had no problem with helping those who need help
Click to expand...


How long do people get help?

1 year.
2 years.
3 or more years....
As long as they need it.
5 years then.
Maybe 10...

What the fuck...as long as we have those rich people we can let these folks stay on forever.


----------



## LeftofLeft

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.




Show US the tolerance of Conservatives among Liberals.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.



You're not liberals, you're leftists.

And it's all the forced labor camps, killing fields, mass graves, disappearances, etc. that make people hate you.

200 million peace time civilians butchered, and you're just getting started. That can make you unpopular at some parties....


----------



## peach174

rightwinger said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals founded this country and have given you the freedoms you enjoy
> 
> Feel free to thank them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am all for John F. Kennedy . "ask not what your country could do for you...." liberal,  the liberal today? no way in hell....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask not what your country can do for you was a call for public service not a condemnation of public welfare
Click to expand...


Yes is was ,but he also wanted reforms for those public welfare programs by helping them and getting them off the programs, by helping them to get back to work.
John F. Kennedy: Special Message to the Congress on Public Welfare Programs.


----------



## Rocko

Being that conservatives are the minority, it's safe to say they're on the receiving end of more hate.


----------



## francoHFW

It's a typical reaction of ignorant haters to being shown they're WRONG. lol


----------



## peach174

Rocko said:


> Being that conservatives are the minority, it's safe to say they're on the receiving end of more hate.



Sorry Conservative and Moderates are the majority.
Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.


----------



## francoHFW

And moderates are mainly Dems. You lost.


----------



## thereisnospoon

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, my friend.....Liberals
> 
> Defenders of freedom
> Protectors of the innocent
> Enemy of those who plan to do harm to our country
> 
> Truth, Justice....and the American Way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as that freedom is liberal and not conservative
> As long as the innocent are born, but not the unborn innocent fetus.
> Liberals are the ones doing harm to our contry. Keeping the poor in poverty and bringing the middle class down by taking taxes from them, to bring up the status of the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals founded this country and have given you the freedoms you enjoy
> 
> Feel free to thank them
Click to expand...

Fuck that. Our freedoms and liberties are ordained by God. Not by men. And certainly not by government.
We are "given" rights? Hell no. We have them from the day we are born. 
Now, a little education. Classical liberalism of the past bears ZERO resemblance to the liberalism of today.
Modern liberalism is socialism. It opposes liberty. It seeks to grow government. It supports central planning. It seeks to equalize outcome, influence behavior and limit speech by punitive taxation.
Liberals abhor the individual. Liberalism herds people into groups the pits those groups against each other.


----------



## Pete7469

theHawk said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People hate liberals because they hate LIARS.  And that is exactly what liberals are.  Sometimes they tell half truths, omit important facts in order to distort the narrative in their favor, or of course just outright lie.
> 
> Take the start of your own post for example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you're not baffled by any of the thousands of angry, hate filled posts by liberals directed toward us conservatives every day on this forum.  Again distortion by omission.
> 
> So, thanks for demonstrating why people don't like liberals like you.
Click to expand...


I couldn't believe the OP was that ridiculous, I thought it was sarcasm or something.

Liberals are the most narrow minded, mean, hateful political cretins alive. If you can not see the slander, lies and venom that spews from the left it has to be because you are a liberal, and agree with it.

Now the bed wetters might be outnumbered on this forum, and they are pretty much everywhere except san fransicko so they get it more in volume, but I haven't been here a week and I've already had a bed wetter imply that myself and some fellow 2A supporters were sociopathic killers, and would follow hitler.

If that isn't a hateful attack I don't know what is, but I can give it just as well as I can take it, and the libs have earned every bit of my contempt.


----------



## thereisnospoon

francoHFW said:


> And moderates are mainly Dems. You lost.



 No one is discussing political parties here. This thread is about ideology.
Get with the program, sparky.
Moderates are called moderates because they are not liberals. 
Moderates tend to be socially left leaning but fiscally conservative.
A typical moderate does not vote a straight party ticket. Moderates are led by what is popular. They sit on the fence. Moderates are unpredictable.
So for you to claim they vote in lockstep with democrats is disingenuous.


----------



## JimBowie1958

francoHFW said:


> And moderates are mainly Dems. You lost.




Self described moderates are not mainly Dems, iirc.

They are mostly independents.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Dutch said:


> Conservatives will be satisfied if we return to the economic standards of the 1890's. And as they and their children and grandchildren head off to work for 2.50 an hour at some sweatshop with no health and safety standards, they will look up to their robber baron bosses and insist that if they work hard enough that will be them someday.



Yeah, right alongside the liberals who will be passing more racial eugenics laws and justifying the slaughter of third world people if it gets in the way of their progressive agenda.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Liberals on Twitter issue hate, death wishes for Supreme Court justices*​
March 26, 2013
By: Joe Newby

On Tuesday, liberal supporters of gay marriage issued a variety of hateful, profane tweets targeting conservative Supreme Court Justices in the event they rule against same-sex marriage, Twitchy reported.

"If Prop 8 and DOMA are upheld by SCOTUS, we need to have some gay rioting in the streets," tweeted "Robin."

One Twitter user sent a profane tweet with two words repeated over and over: "F**k Scalia."

Another threatened to "discriminate against every f*****g straight a*****e against SSM."

A number of the messages called for the deaths of the more conservative members of the Court.

"So... can Scalia die already?" one person asked.

"Now if only Scalia would die so we could replace the idiot," another said in response to a tweet by Seth MacFarlane.

"_ hope scalia and thomas get heart attacks and die right as theyre abt to dissent on gay marriage (sic)," tweeted "miguel de cervantes."

"So I hate the Supreme Court, and have said many times that I'm going to bake a f*****g celebration cake when Scalia dies/resigns," added "Tiffany Criswell."

...

Liberals on Twitter issue hate, death wishes for Supreme Court justices - National Policy & Issues | Examiner.com_


----------



## francoHFW

And Independants vote Dem- you lost. LOL

Classical liberals is ANOTHER  brand new BS RW theory like Hitler was a socialist, for dupes only.Read a real book.


----------



## francoHFW

Dems get rude on twitter. The GOP lies and gets rude on Fox, Rush, Beck, and the rest of the Pub Propaganda Machine- ie their main stream leaders fer chrissake- and of course their silly dupes.


----------



## francoHFW

The Pub Propaganda Machine goes off and finds the most obcure Dem haters they can find, organizes them for the dupes, and act like that's equivalent to Pub leading a-holes doing the same thing...LOL  Pathetic- thanks.


----------



## poet

American_Jihad said:


> *Liberals on Twitter issue hate, death wishes for Supreme Court justices*​
> March 26, 2013
> By: Joe Newby
> 
> On Tuesday, liberal supporters of gay marriage issued a variety of hateful, profane tweets targeting conservative Supreme Court Justices in the event they rule against same-sex marriage, Twitchy reported.
> 
> "If Prop 8 and DOMA are upheld by SCOTUS, we need to have some gay rioting in the streets," tweeted "Robin."
> 
> One Twitter user sent a profane tweet with two words repeated over and over: "F**k Scalia."
> 
> Another threatened to "discriminate against every f*****g straight a*****e against SSM."
> 
> A number of the messages called for the deaths of the more conservative members of the Court.
> 
> "So... can Scalia die already?" one person asked.
> 
> "Now if only Scalia would die so we could replace the idiot," another said in response to a tweet by Seth MacFarlane.
> 
> "_ hope scalia and thomas get heart attacks and die right as theyre abt to dissent on gay marriage (sic)," tweeted "miguel de cervantes."
> 
> "So I hate the Supreme Court, and have said many times that I'm going to bake a f*****g celebration cake when Scalia dies/resigns," added "Tiffany Criswell."
> 
> ...
> 
> Liberals on Twitter issue hate, death wishes for Supreme Court justices - National Policy & Issues | Examiner.com_


_

And?_


----------



## American_Jihad

francoHFW said:


> Dems get rude on twitter. The GOP lies and gets rude on Fox, Rush, Beck, and the rest of the Pub Propaganda Machine- ie their main stream leaders fer chrissake- and of course their silly dupes.



In late 1915, Warspite was grounded in the River Forth causing some damage to her hull; she had been led by her escorting destroyers down the small ships channel. After repairs, she rejoined the Grand Fleet, this time as part of the newly formed 5th Battle Squadron which had been created for Queen Elizabeth class ships. In early December, Warspite was involved in another incident when, during an exercise, she collided with her sister-ship Barham, which caused considerable damage to Warspite.


WoW, that's just like you...


----------



## poet

peach174 said:


> Dutch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives will be satisfied if we return to the economic standards of the 1890's. And as they and their children and grandchildren head off to work for 2.50 an hour at some sweatshop with no health and safety standards, they will look up to their robber baron bosses and insist that if they work hard enough that will be them someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true at all and you know it.
> No one wants go back to that type of shit nor does Conservatives want everyone drinking dirty water.
> We want some common sense back in our government.
> Our three largest entitlement programs really need to be reformed and *waste, fraud and abuse needs to be eliminated*.
Click to expand...


Absolutely. We can start with special interest lobbies, namely those in the insurance, healthcare provider, and drug industries.


----------



## poet

Pete7469 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People hate liberals because they hate LIARS.  And that is exactly what liberals are.  Sometimes they tell half truths, omit important facts in order to distort the narrative in their favor, or of course just outright lie.
> 
> Take the start of your own post for example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you're not baffled by any of the thousands of angry, hate filled posts by liberals directed toward us conservatives every day on this forum.  Again distortion by omission.
> 
> So, thanks for demonstrating why people don't like liberals like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't believe the OP was that ridiculous, I thought it was sarcasm or something.
> 
> Liberals are the most narrow minded, mean, hateful political cretins alive. If you can not see the slander, lies and venom that spews from the left it has to be because you are a liberal, and agree with it.
> 
> Now the bed wetters might be outnumbered on this forum, and they are pretty much everywhere except san fransicko so they get it more in volume, but I haven't been here a week and I've already had a bed wetter imply that myself and some fellow 2A supporters were sociopathic killers, and would follow hitler.
> 
> If that isn't a hateful attack I don't know what is, but I can give it just as well as I can take it, and the libs have earned every bit of my contempt.
Click to expand...


And I revel in it. I bask in the putrid "soup' that is your contempt. Indeed I do.


----------



## Darkwind

Dutch said:


> Conservatives will be satisfied if we return to the economic standards of the 1890's. And as they and their children and grandchildren head off to work for 2.50 an hour at some sweatshop with no health and safety standards, they will look up to their robber baron bosses and insist that if they work hard enough that will be them someday.



This is why people do not like liberals.  Not just GOP people or Conservatives, but many on the left as well dislike and find this kind of lie distasteful.

Yet here is a person speaking lies about conservatives.  Will you call out your own on blatant lies like these?

Until your request to understand why you are disliked can see this kind of hatred, nothing will ever convince you.

For those of you who cannot follow context, this was not aimed at Dutch.  I was using Dutch as the example of hatred foisted upon us all.


----------



## American_Jihad

poet said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Liberals on Twitter issue hate, death wishes for Supreme Court justices*​
> March 26, 2013
> By: Joe Newby
> 
> On Tuesday, liberal supporters of gay marriage issued a variety of hateful, profane tweets targeting conservative Supreme Court Justices in the event they rule against same-sex marriage, Twitchy reported.
> 
> "If Prop 8 and DOMA are upheld by SCOTUS, we need to have some gay rioting in the streets," tweeted "Robin."
> 
> One Twitter user sent a profane tweet with two words repeated over and over: "F**k Scalia."
> 
> Another threatened to "discriminate against every f*****g straight a*****e against SSM."
> 
> A number of the messages called for the deaths of the more conservative members of the Court.
> 
> "So... can Scalia die already?" one person asked.
> 
> "Now if only Scalia would die so we could replace the idiot," another said in response to a tweet by Seth MacFarlane.
> 
> "_ hope scalia and thomas get heart attacks and die right as theyre abt to dissent on gay marriage (sic)," tweeted "miguel de cervantes."
> 
> "So I hate the Supreme Court, and have said many times that I'm going to bake a f*****g celebration cake when Scalia dies/resigns," added "Tiffany Criswell."
> 
> ...
> 
> Liberals on Twitter issue hate, death wishes for Supreme Court justices - National Policy & Issues | Examiner.com_
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> And?_
Click to expand...

_

...

The worst tweet posted by Twitchy came from "Michael Daflos," who suggested taking direct action against two of the Justices if they did not support gay marriage.

"Nerve-racking day for all my homos out there. Good luck, and if we lose, let's start a posse and f*****g murder Scalia and Thomas," he wrote.

Profane hate and death wishes from liberals on Twitter is nothing new.

Throughout the 2012 general election, liberals routinely called for the murder of Mitt Romney. They also called for his wife to be killed, and some advocated murdering those who voted for Romney.

Liberals on Twitter have also advocated the murder of Sarah Palin, Governor Scott Walker, Donald Trump and GOP supporters in general. Some also targeted a six-year-old boy after a pro-Romney video went viral.

Last June, liberals on the social media site targeted Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

"Way to win hearts and minds," a reader said at Twitchy.

Liberals on Twitter issue hate, death wishes for Supreme Court justices - National Policy & Issues | Examiner.com

..._


----------



## SuperDave

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as that freedom is liberal and not conservative
> As long as the innocent are born, but not the unborn innocent fetus.
> Liberals are the ones doing harm to our contry. Keeping the poor in poverty and bringing the middle class down by taking taxes from them, to bring up the status of the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals founded this country and have given you the freedoms you enjoy
> 
> Feel free to thank them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actual true liberals yes.
> Social Liberals no way. These are the ones I am talking about.
Click to expand...


If you are referring to the group that believed in the principles of "Classical Liberalism" you are correct because that system is a combination of the modern belief systems called "Libertarianism" and "Conservatism".  It has nothing to do with the modern definitions of Liberalism or Progressivism.  

Assuming since you take the time to come here and post you have actually bothered to learn the beliefs of the major political systems both past and present.  That being the case you are aware that the Founding Fathers of this country believed that government was a necessary evil that should be kept to the absolute bare minimums in scope and power...that taxes should be as low as possible and they found income tax particularly offensive, here's a quote from Jefferson:

*To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." *

It's always amazed me that this sentiment of Jefferson's that is present in so much of his writing both personal and professional along with so many other Founding Father's is so widely ignored while his "wall of seperation" quote which he used only once as a part of a sentence, which was part of a very short letter, where he simply re-phrased the first secion of the First Amendment in an attempt to allay the fears of a small church called the Danbury Baptists has somehow surpassed the actual First Amendment to become the defining principle upon which our courts decide matters of religion in our country.

Anyway getting back to the original point, hopefully you know that the political definitions of labels such as Conservative and Liberal are not the same as their definitions in other areas.  You don't believe that the Founding Fathers were "Liberals" because they had ideas which differed from the status-quo of the time or that someone who is a Conservative in their political beliefs is not someone who does not like change as someone who is Conservative in their fashion might be.

Basically the philosophy of the people who founded this country was that government power should be limited and individual liberty maximized as much as possible.  They believed that a person should have the Right to do pretty much whatever they wanted until doing so interfered with or could very reasonably be expected to interfere with the Rights of another.

The duties assigned in the Constitution along with stepping in at that point where the Rights of two people were at odds were the only situations where the Federal Government was supposed to involve itself in the lives of it's citizens.  We've gone so far off track from this that I doubt more than a tiny fraction of the people would even be able to envision what a great nation that would be, because all they'd be able to picture is all the stuff they'd miss out on.  But as the 10th Amendment clearly spells out any other government functions beyond those would be the purview of the States and more local governments.

So yes I do thank the Founding Fathers, whether you choose to call them Conservatives, Classical Liberals, the predecessors of Libertarianism or whatever, then I humbly ask their forgiveness for the absolute mess we've made of the fantastic nation they left in our care.


----------



## SuperDave

rightwinger said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives love Liberals
> 
> They always manage to userp liberal ideals about 30 years after the fact and then claim it as their own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you haven't answered the question:
> 
> Where do modern liberals derive their philosophies from? (The answer is obviously NOT John Locke, a classical liberal)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answered throughtout the thread
> 
> Mine is ....Truth, Justice and the American Way
Click to expand...


No comment on your post but I did find your signature interesting.  My guess would be the CEO paid for his 9 cookies, the Conservative who probably works for the CEO paid for his 1 cookie.  Then the Liberal gets his enormous, incredibly powerful friend to take 5 of the CEO's cookies and take the Conservatives one cookie.  He then keeps 3 for himself, gives 3 to the Liberal.  Then the Lib turns to the Conservative and says "I don't understand why you support greedy CEO's.  He has more cookies than anybody and you don't have any and it isn't like he made the cookie"


----------



## poet

Darkwind said:


> Dutch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives will be satisfied if we return to the economic standards of the 1890's. And as they and their children and grandchildren head off to work for 2.50 an hour at some sweatshop with no health and safety standards, they will look up to their robber baron bosses and insist that if they work hard enough that will be them someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why people do not like liberals.  Not just GOP people or Conservatives, but many on the left as well dislike and find this kind of lie distasteful.
> 
> Yet here is a person speaking lies about conservatives.  Will you call out your own on blatant lies like these?
> 
> Until your request to understand why you are disliked can see this kind of hatred, nothing will ever convince you.
> 
> For those of you who cannot follow context, this was not aimed at Dutch.  I was using Dutch as the example of hatred foisted upon us all.
Click to expand...



blatant lies? where?


----------



## editec

Uncensored2008 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not liberals, you're leftists.
> 
> And it's all the forced labor camps, killing fields, mass graves, disappearances, etc. that make people hate you.
> 
> 200 million peace time civilians butchered, and you're just getting started. That can make you unpopular at some parties....
Click to expand...



Got hysteria?


----------



## Bfgrn

Pete7469 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People hate liberals because they hate LIARS.  And that is exactly what liberals are.  Sometimes they tell half truths, omit important facts in order to distort the narrative in their favor, or of course just outright lie.
> 
> Take the start of your own post for example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you're not baffled by any of the thousands of angry, hate filled posts by liberals directed toward us conservatives every day on this forum.  Again distortion by omission.
> 
> So, thanks for demonstrating why people don't like liberals like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't believe the OP was that ridiculous, I thought it was sarcasm or something.
> 
> Liberals are the most narrow minded, mean, hateful political cretins alive. If you can not see the slander, lies and venom that spews from the left it has to be because you are a liberal, and agree with it.
> 
> Now the bed wetters might be outnumbered on this forum, and they are pretty much everywhere except san fransicko so they get it more in volume, but I haven't been here a week and I've already had a bed wetter imply that myself and some fellow 2A supporters were sociopathic killers, and would follow hitler.
> 
> If that isn't a hateful attack I don't know what is, but I can give it just as well as I can take it, and the libs have earned every bit of my contempt.
Click to expand...


Of course you would follow Hitler. You volunteered to kill for the state. What makes you think you wouldn't kill for the state if you were born a German in the 1920's?


----------



## rightwinger

thereisnospoon said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as that freedom is liberal and not conservative
> As long as the innocent are born, but not the unborn innocent fetus.
> Liberals are the ones doing harm to our contry. Keeping the poor in poverty and bringing the middle class down by taking taxes from them, to bring up the status of the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals founded this country and have given you the freedoms you enjoy
> 
> Feel free to thank them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck that. Our freedoms and liberties are ordained by God. Not by men. And certainly not by government.
> We are "given" rights? Hell no. We have them from the day we are born.
> Now, a little education. Classical liberalism of the past bears ZERO resemblance to the liberalism of today.
> Modern liberalism is socialism. It opposes liberty. It seeks to grow government. It supports central planning. It seeks to equalize outcome, influence behavior and limit speech by punitive taxation.
> Liberals abhor the individual. Liberalism herds people into groups the pits those groups against each other.
Click to expand...


Anyone familiar with the history of individual rights can tell you that you are wrong

God pretty much looked the other way as personal rights were being abused. He even endorsed slavery


----------



## Bfgrn

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Why do people hate liberals? The answer lies in an understanding of the conservative movement.

How Conservatives Think (Or Fail To Do So)

Conservatives once looked to the past for what it could teach about the present and the future. Early conservatives were traditionalists or libertarians, or a bit of both. Today, however, there are religious conservatives, economic conservatives, social conservatives, cultural conservatives, neoconservatives, traditional conservatives, and a number of other factions.

Within these factions, there is a good amount of inconsistency and variety, but the movement has long been held together through the power of negative thinking. The glue of the movement is in its perceived enemies. Conservatives once found a common concern with respect to their excessive concern about communism (not that liberals and progressive were not concerned as well, but they were neither paranoid nor willing to mount witch hunts). When communism was no longer a threat, the dysfunctional conservative movement rallied around its members' common opposition to anything they perceived as liberal. (This was, in effect, any point of view that differed from their own, whether it was liberal or not.)


----------



## poet

Bfgrn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people hate liberals? The answer lies in an understanding of the conservative movement.
> 
> How Conservatives Think (Or Fail To Do So)
> 
> Conservatives once looked to the past for what it could teach about the present and the future. Early conservatives were traditionalists or libertarians, or a bit of both. Today, however, there are religious conservatives, economic conservatives, social conservatives, cultural conservatives, neoconservatives, traditional conservatives, and a number of other factions.
> 
> Within these factions, there is a good amount of inconsistency and variety, but the movement has long been held together through the power of negative thinking. The glue of the movement is in its perceived enemies. Conservatives once found a common concern with respect to their excessive concern about communism (not that liberals and progressive were not concerned as well, but they were neither paranoid nor willing to mount witch hunts). When communism was no longer a threat, the dysfunctional conservative movement rallied around its members' common opposition to anything they perceived as liberal. (This was, in effect, any point of view that differed from their own, whether it was liberal or not.)
Click to expand...

This explains much: 
Conservatism: The Politics Of Ignorance and Self-Interest


----------



## Bfgrn

poet said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people hate liberals? The answer lies in an understanding of the conservative movement.
> 
> How Conservatives Think (Or Fail To Do So)
> 
> Conservatives once looked to the past for what it could teach about the present and the future. Early conservatives were traditionalists or libertarians, or a bit of both. Today, however, there are religious conservatives, economic conservatives, social conservatives, cultural conservatives, neoconservatives, traditional conservatives, and a number of other factions.
> 
> Within these factions, there is a good amount of inconsistency and variety, but the movement has long been held together through the power of negative thinking. The glue of the movement is in its perceived enemies. Conservatives once found a common concern with respect to their excessive concern about communism (not that liberals and progressive were not concerned as well, but they were neither paranoid nor willing to mount witch hunts). When communism was no longer a threat, the dysfunctional conservative movement rallied around its members' common opposition to anything they perceived as liberal. (This was, in effect, any point of view that differed from their own, whether it was liberal or not.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This explains much:
> Conservatism: The Politics Of Ignorance and Self-Interest
Click to expand...


The first article I posted by John Dean (Richard Nixon's former White House Counsel) is 1 of a 3 part series. He has written numerous articles about how authoritarians have taken control of the Republican Party. Plus his book 'Conservatives Without Conscience' is a must read. 

Good article Poet... here is one in return. It explains a lot. (note the chapter under the heading * The Destruction of Language)

What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?


"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman


----------



## numan

'


tooAlive said:


> I see you're from Finland.
> 
> What's your definition of Liberal? Chances are we're not talking about the same ideologies.


Words of Wisdom. · ·  

*How many arguments could have been reduced to a few words if the disputants had dared to define their terms.*
---_Aristotle_
.


----------



## numan

'


CrusaderFrank said:


> Liberals are hilarious....
> They will exhaust themselves fighting problems to your last dollar. The only thing they like to work hard at is finding new ways to take from people who actually work.



Was it not Neo-Conservative icon Dick Cheney who declared that *"deficits don't matter"*?

Whether they call themselves "liberal" or "conservative", the Talking Heads are out to rob you blind.

Your rulers want to goad you into fighting each other, and then pick your pockets while you are too occupied to see what is really happening.
.


----------



## kaz

numan said:


> Was it not Neo-Conservative icon Dick Cheney who declared that *"deficits don't matter"*?



Tip.  You might want to Google what "Neoconservative" means because you don't seem to know.  BTW, that is why fiscal conservatives don't care for either the spending of the Bush or Obama administrations.


----------



## bodecea

Godboy said:


> Well for starters, they call republicans racist if they disagree with obama. That alone makes them hatable. Theres many reasons to hate liberals though.



I am a liberal and I don't call someone a racist for simply disagreeing with the President.


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well for starters, they call republicans racist if they disagree with obama. That alone makes them hatable. Theres many reasons to hate liberals though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a liberal and I don't call someone a racist for simply disagreeing with the President.
Click to expand...


Good.  Out of curiosity, do you object when other liberals do it or are you silent?


----------



## Uncensored2008

bodecea said:


> I am a liberal and I don't call someone a racist for simply disagreeing with the President.



You're not a "liberal," shortbus - you're a leftist. There is a BIG difference. Your views have no similarity to Payne or Jefferson, but are nearly identical to Pol Pot.


----------



## chikenwing

syrenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> A liberal is willing to recognize that there are many areas in life where there is neither right nor wrong, just a range of choices, choices which will not solve the whole of the problems, and are not good or bad, but more effective or less effective. This does not set well with conservatives, who prefer definate right and wrong.
> 
> Also, liberals accept reality far better than conservatives. They do not try to bend the real world into "the way things ought to be". That is why 'Conservatives' deny the science of AGW, in spite of all the evidence of a warming world around them, and the solid science behind the reason why. And when a major poltical party embraces this lack of recognition of reality, as the GOP has, there is no way that I can vote for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you jest.
> 
> Liberals are just as black and white, right and wrong on issues as cons are. Dont kid yourself into thinking that liberals are any more or less flexible.
Click to expand...


But but but..............



Also, liberals accept reality far beter than conservatives. They do not try to bend the real world into "the way things ought to be"

That's the basic foundation of a liberal,the way things ought to be.You have got to be kidding.


----------



## kaz

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a liberal and I don't call someone a racist for simply disagreeing with the President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not a "liberal," shortbus - you're a leftist. There is a BIG difference. Your views have no similarity to Payne or Jefferson, but are nearly identical to Pol Pot.
Click to expand...


Agreed!  The true liberals are classic liberals!  Today's Democrats are lovers of government.  There's nothing liberal about that.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Bill Ayers Fan Stages Fake Republican Rape Threat Against Herself to Protest Rape Culture*

May 1, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield 






Meg Lanker-Simons and husband.
(looks like liberal trailer trash)

Meg Lanker-Simons once fought to bring Bill Ayers to speak on campus, but I suspect the WU bigwig would be underwhelmed by the scope of her criminal ambition which consisted of faking a rape threat against herself from a Republican and then staging rallies to protest Rape Culture.

This was the scene on April 28 as hundreds gathered to denounce rape culture on the University of Wyoming campus. But the only rape culture that the rape culture gang could find was the one they manufactured.

...

Bill Ayers Fan Stages Fake Republican Rape Threat Against Herself to Protest Rape Culture | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## buckeye45_73

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


 

Saigon, its because they're hypocritical, will follow anyone that hates the US, christianity and capitalism.

It's not those guys, but the crazy professor types that say the meanest vile things (think Ward Churchill) and the rank and file liberals always back these people.....liberals can be caught in bribery scandals, affairs, and other nefarious conduct and be praised.......two people

OJ Simpson and Tiger Woods...both were seen by liberals (especially black liberals) as oreos, uncletoms, house *******, acting white, ect ect and were republicans....the worst sin ever

Once one got off a murder charge and the other cheated on his wife, they  became icons to the liberal establishment.....and while they werent given a phone call.....the got their street cred and increased in popularity(yeah INCREASED) by the left(especially in the black community)


Also liberals are very dismissive of arguements, even when they themselves cant argue for shit and very snobby, elitist and hateful


----------



## Darkwind

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


I stopped reading at the part highlighted in red.

If you cannot even be honest with yourself, I have no desire to interact with you.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Darkwind said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at the part highlighted in red.
> 
> If you cannot even be honest with yourself, I have no desire to interact with you.
Click to expand...


Saigon,

There is just as much conservative bashing by liberals, as there is liberal bashing by conservatives.

That is the problem we are facing in our country: 2 main political parties absolutely hate each other, and the rest of the country suffers for their unwillingness to work together. 

If you ask me, the main political parties in this country will lead to its demise if we don't change. When we are blocking good legislation, that would move this country forward, simply because it was introduced by the opposing party. 

So basically, we have a bunch of whinny, temper-tantrum throwing babies in Congress, that will fold their arms and pout, rather than work with their counterparts. It is despicable.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

WethePeopleUS said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at the part highlighted in red.
> 
> If you cannot even be honest with yourself, I have no desire to interact with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saigon,
> 
> There is just as much conservative bashing by liberals, as there is liberal bashing by conservatives.
> 
> That is the problem we are facing in our country: 2 main political parties absolutely hate each other, and the rest of the country suffers for their unwillingness to work together.
> 
> If you ask me, the main political parties in this country will lead to its demise if we don't change. *When we are blocking good legislation, that would move this country forward, simply because it was introduced by the opposing party*.
> 
> So basically, we have a bunch of whinny, temper-tantrum throwing babies in Congress, that will fold their arms and pout, rather than work with their counterparts. It is despicable.
Click to expand...


It's more about ideology than simply party. And yes, I want conservatives to stand up for their principles no matter what. You can call that pouting, whining, throwing temper tantrums or whatever you like. In case you haven't noticed, this country is going broke! And the liberal solution is to raise taxes and spend more which in effect will make us go broke at a faster rate. Conservatives want to cut spending and lower taxes which in turn will boost our economy.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Lonestar_logic said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at the part highlighted in red.
> 
> If you cannot even be honest with yourself, I have no desire to interact with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon,
> 
> There is just as much conservative bashing by liberals, as there is liberal bashing by conservatives.
> 
> That is the problem we are facing in our country: 2 main political parties absolutely hate each other, and the rest of the country suffers for their unwillingness to work together.
> 
> If you ask me, the main political parties in this country will lead to its demise if we don't change. *When we are blocking good legislation, that would move this country forward, simply because it was introduced by the opposing party*.
> 
> So basically, we have a bunch of whinny, temper-tantrum throwing babies in Congress, that will fold their arms and pout, rather than work with their counterparts. It is despicable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's more about ideology than simply party. And yes, I want conservatives to stand up for their principles no matter what. You can call that pouting, whining, throwing temper tantrums or whatever you like. In case you haven't noticed, this country is going broke! And the liberal solution is to raise taxes and spend more which in effect will make us go broke at a faster rate. Conservatives want to cut spending and lower taxes which in turn will boost our economy.
Click to expand...


Thank you for proving my point. One groups wants one thing, and won't budge on the issue, and the opposite group does the same. Get a clue, *government is about compromise. Government is about bettering your society, for the whole, not a few elitists. * But we have seemed to lose that notion. However, as long as we have the babies in Congress, that are so blinded by party hatred, we will continue to go down the toilet. 

One example:
Obama and the dems tried to get legislation passed that would offer huge tax incentives for large corporations to bring their factories back home to America, to boost OUR economy, and the repubs shot it down.... hhhmmmm and the repubs want us to believe they have "us" in their best interest?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

WethePeopleUS said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon,
> 
> There is just as much conservative bashing by liberals, as there is liberal bashing by conservatives.
> 
> That is the problem we are facing in our country: 2 main political parties absolutely hate each other, and the rest of the country suffers for their unwillingness to work together.
> 
> If you ask me, the main political parties in this country will lead to its demise if we don't change. *When we are blocking good legislation, that would move this country forward, simply because it was introduced by the opposing party*.
> 
> So basically, we have a bunch of whinny, temper-tantrum throwing babies in Congress, that will fold their arms and pout, rather than work with their counterparts. It is despicable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's more about ideology than simply party. And yes, I want conservatives to stand up for their principles no matter what. You can call that pouting, whining, throwing temper tantrums or whatever you like. In case you haven't noticed, this country is going broke! And the liberal solution is to raise taxes and spend more which in effect will make us go broke at a faster rate. Conservatives want to cut spending and lower taxes which in turn will boost our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point. One groups wants one thing, and won't budge on the issue, and the opposite group does the same. Get a clue, *government is about compromise. Government is about bettering your society, for the whole, not a few elitists. * But we have seemed to lose that notion. However, as long as we have the babies in Congress, that are so blinded by party hatred, we will continue to go down the toilet.
> 
> One example:
> *Obama and the dems tried to get legislation passed that would offer huge tax incentives for large corporations* to bring their factories back home to America, to boost OUR economy, and the repubs shot it down.... hhhmmmm and the repubs want us to believe they have "us" in their best interest?
Click to expand...


I wasn't trying to disprove your point I just thought you had over simplified things. 

I wouldn't compromise on my principles. Would you?

What specific legislation would *that* be?


----------



## Katzndogz

The liberals today have nothing to do with the liberals of years ago.  Liberals today are intent on only one thing, to destroy the country to the ground, past the foundations, destroy it into dust.


----------



## NoNukes

kaz said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a liberal and I don't call someone a racist for simply disagreeing with the President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not a "liberal," shortbus - you're a leftist. There is a BIG difference. Your views have no similarity to Payne or Jefferson, but are nearly identical to Pol Pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed!  The true liberals are classic liberals!  Today's Democrats are lovers of government.  There's nothing liberal about that.
Click to expand...


Then why does the right call us liberals and constantly bash liberals? Must be stupidity.


----------



## hazlnut

Matthew said:


> Their economic theory's are destructive.




_"Their"_ economic theories??


Math makes your head hurt?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

I don't _hate _liberals... I don't really _hate _anyone.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Matthew said:


> Their economic theory's are destructive.



And Trickle-down has worked SO well!
​

My favorite thing about GW Bush is that he proved his daddy right about what he said calling Reagans economic theory "Voodoo Economics".


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Lonestar_logic said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's more about ideology than simply party. And yes, I want conservatives to stand up for their principles no matter what. You can call that pouting, whining, throwing temper tantrums or whatever you like. In case you haven't noticed, this country is going broke! And the liberal solution is to raise taxes and spend more which in effect will make us go broke at a faster rate. Conservatives want to cut spending and lower taxes which in turn will boost our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point. One groups wants one thing, and won't budge on the issue, and the opposite group does the same. Get a clue, *government is about compromise. Government is about bettering your society, for the whole, not a few elitists. * But we have seemed to lose that notion. However, as long as we have the babies in Congress, that are so blinded by party hatred, we will continue to go down the toilet.
> 
> One example:
> *Obama and the dems tried to get legislation passed that would offer huge tax incentives for large corporations* to bring their factories back home to America, to boost OUR economy, and the repubs shot it down.... hhhmmmm and the repubs want us to believe they have "us" in their best interest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to disprove your point I just thought you had over simplified things.
> 
> I wouldn't compromise on my principles. Would you?
> 
> What specific legislation would *that* be?
Click to expand...


I wasn't attacking you bro, just saying that you had further proved my point. As you stated, you wouldn't budge on your principles. That is exactly what is wrong with Congress. They simply won't budge. Being a Political Science major with a concentration in Law, I have learned very well, that government is about compromise. Not everyone will get exactly what they want, but that is the definition of compromise:
Compromise:
Noun:
An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

However, our politicians today are reluctant to heed to concessions, and that is pathetic. I have seen 9 year olds work out their problems better than the grown men in Congress.. kinda makes one wonder....

And to answer your question, yes I would compromise on my principles, if it was to better my country. I would not have the audacity to sit there, and say it's my way or the highway. It is not solely my country, and it is not only Congress's country. There are 300+ million people to consider, and if I have to compromise on some of my principles to better the lives of as many people as possible, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would do it. I however, am not selfish, and think more about other people than your average citizen.


----------



## Redfish

because their ideology trumps their common sense.

because they are genetically defective

because they lie

because they hate freedom

because they want to be slaves to the government

because they ignore the constitution


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Redfish said:


> because their ideology trumps their common sense.
> 
> because they are genetically defective
> 
> because they lie
> 
> because they hate freedom
> 
> because they want to be slaves to the government
> 
> because they ignore the constitution



And the republicans wouldn't dare do what you mentioned above....


----------



## poet

Redfish said:


> because their ideology trumps their common sense.
> 
> because they are genetically defective
> 
> because they lie
> 
> because they hate freedom
> 
> because they want to be slaves to the government
> 
> because they ignore the constitution



I was unaware that liberals were hated.


----------



## Uncensored2008

NoNukes said:


> Then why does the right call us liberals and constantly bash liberals? Must be stupidity.



The term has been hijacked, just as the democratic party has. When the democrats were ended in 1968, the name of the party and the term liberal were applied to the Socialists.


----------



## Dot Com

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



losing not one but two elections to a "different looking" African American w/ a "different" sounding name has a lot of the eXtreme Righties (who seem to be in a majority on their side, mirroring the make-up of the Boehner House) in perma-hate mode. Sad that 

They claim that their running RINO's & that if they only run a further right candidate, that they'll win


----------



## boilermaker55

Try researching what the economy does when it is under a Democratic administration and compare what it does when there is a Republican one.





Matthew said:


> Their economic theory's are destructive.


----------



## Truthmatters

they dont do facts


----------



## Redfish

poet said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> because their ideology trumps their common sense.
> 
> because they are genetically defective
> 
> because they lie
> 
> because they hate freedom
> 
> because they want to be slaves to the government
> 
> because they ignore the constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was unaware that liberals were hated.
Click to expand...




correction:   I do not hate liberals.   I hate liberalism, because it destroys civilizations


----------



## Redfish

WethePeopleUS said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> because their ideology trumps their common sense.
> 
> because they are genetically defective
> 
> because they lie
> 
> because they hate freedom
> 
> because they want to be slaves to the government
> 
> because they ignore the constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the republicans wouldn't dare do what you mentioned above....
Click to expand...




some might,  many republicans are liberals.   the problem is not the party, the problem is the ideology


----------



## Uncensored2008

AVG-JOE said:


> And Trickle-down has worked SO well!
> ​



Are you claiming that the trickle-up-poverty of Stupid Fuck Economics that you Obamunists use are somehow better?

Show of hands, who here is better off today than they were in 2005? 

No one? 

Damn - imagine that...

Yet you still promote trickle-up-poverty. Like the middle class should embrace their slide into oblivion. 



> My favorite thing about GW Bush is that he proved his daddy right about what he said calling Reagans economic theory "Voodoo Economics".



30 years of growth from supply side. Hey though, the trickle-up-poverty  of the Stupid Fuck Economics you promote have given us 5 years of decline with a promise of despair and poverty for the future.

You Obamunists have a vision for America.


----------



## poet

Redfish said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> because their ideology trumps their common sense.
> 
> because they are genetically defective
> 
> because they lie
> 
> because they hate freedom
> 
> because they want to be slaves to the government
> 
> because they ignore the constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was unaware that liberals were hated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> correction:   I do not hate liberals.   I hate liberalism, because it destroys civilizations
Click to expand...


As does, conservatism (also known as "fascism").


----------



## poet

Redfish said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> because their ideology trumps their common sense.
> 
> because they are genetically defective
> 
> because they lie
> 
> because they hate freedom
> 
> because they want to be slaves to the government
> 
> because they ignore the constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the republicans wouldn't dare do what you mentioned above....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some might,  many republicans are liberals.   the problem is not the party, the problem is the ideology
Click to expand...


LOL. Where is the evidence of that?


----------



## Redfish

poet said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the republicans wouldn't dare do what you mentioned above....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some might,  many republicans are liberals.   the problem is not the party, the problem is the ideology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Where is the evidence of that?
Click to expand...


Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain, the pre-breakup USSR, Rome, the Mayans, the Egyptians, the Axtecs, ancient greece,    liberal ideology brought them all down.

Now, look at China,  no liberalism there----socialism, but not liberalism, and china has survived for thousands of years.  

I am not advocating socialism, just pointing out the failures of liberalism(using today's definition of liberalism)


----------



## Redfish

poet said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was unaware that liberals were hated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> correction:   I do not hate liberals.   I hate liberalism, because it destroys civilizations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As does, conservatism (also known as "fascism").
Click to expand...


conservatives want small unintrusive government----the exact opposite of fascism.

you really don't know much about this do you?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

WethePeopleUS said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point. One groups wants one thing, and won't budge on the issue, and the opposite group does the same. Get a clue, *government is about compromise. Government is about bettering your society, for the whole, not a few elitists. * But we have seemed to lose that notion. However, as long as we have the babies in Congress, that are so blinded by party hatred, we will continue to go down the toilet.
> 
> One example:
> *Obama and the dems tried to get legislation passed that would offer huge tax incentives for large corporations* to bring their factories back home to America, to boost OUR economy, and the repubs shot it down.... hhhmmmm and the repubs want us to believe they have "us" in their best interest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to disprove your point I just thought you had over simplified things.
> 
> I wouldn't compromise on my principles. Would you?
> 
> What specific legislation would *that* be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't attacking you bro, just saying that you had further proved my point. As you stated, you wouldn't budge on your principles. That is exactly what is wrong with Congress. They simply won't budge. Being a Political Science major with a concentration in Law, I have learned very well, that government is about compromise. Not everyone will get exactly what they want, but that is the definition of compromise:
> Compromise:
> Noun:
> An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
> 
> However, our politicians today are reluctant to heed to concessions, and that is pathetic. I have seen 9 year olds work out their problems better than the grown men in Congress.. kinda makes one wonder....
> 
> And to answer your question, yes I would compromise on my principles, if it was to better my country. I would not have the audacity to sit there, and say it's my way or the highway. It is not solely my country, and it is not only Congress's country. There are 300+ million people to consider, and if I have to compromise on some of my principles to better the lives of as many people as possible, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would do it. I however, am not selfish, and think more about other people than your average citizen.
Click to expand...


Conservative principles are limited government, individual freedom, strong national defense, free enterprise and traditional American values. 

I wouldn't compromise on any of these principles for the simple fact that these principles are better for this country.


----------



## regent

There are core beliefs to liberalism and conservatism and those do not change much. The means to carry out those core beliefs do change, however, but again the means are not the ideology. Governments are only a means to carry out core beliefs.  For example, Jefferson ranted and raved against governments, the history of governments was that of helping monarchs, and elites. After Jefferson became president, his concept of government slowly changed, governments could be used to care and help all humans achieve happiness. Governments could a means to an end; the end: happiness for all people.  
Jefferson died broke.


----------



## Dot Com

AVG-JOE said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their economic theory's are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Trickle-down has worked SO well!
> ​
> 
> My favorite thing about GW Bush is that he proved his daddy right about what he said calling Reagans economic theory "Voodoo Economics".
Click to expand...


its derived from the "Horse & Sparrow" Theory 

Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that supply side economics was not a new theory. He wrote, "Mr. David Stockman has said that *supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policywhat an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."*[69] Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896.


----------



## Dot Com

Redfish said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> correction:   I do not hate liberals.   I hate liberalism, because it destroys civilizations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As does, conservatism (also known as "fascism").
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> conservatives want small unintrusive government----the exact opposite of fascism.
> 
> you really don't know much about this do you?
Click to expand...


you better run, don't walk away from the Repub party because they're wedded to the Pentagon contractors  Thats revenue taken DIRECTLY from YOUR tax dollars and sent to favored contractors.


----------



## Darkwind

WethePeopleUS said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon,
> 
> There is just as much conservative bashing by liberals, as there is liberal bashing by conservatives.
> 
> That is the problem we are facing in our country: 2 main political parties absolutely hate each other, and the rest of the country suffers for their unwillingness to work together.
> 
> If you ask me, the main political parties in this country will lead to its demise if we don't change. *When we are blocking good legislation, that would move this country forward, simply because it was introduced by the opposing party*.
> 
> So basically, we have a bunch of whinny, temper-tantrum throwing babies in Congress, that will fold their arms and pout, rather than work with their counterparts. It is despicable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's more about ideology than simply party. And yes, I want conservatives to stand up for their principles no matter what. You can call that pouting, whining, throwing temper tantrums or whatever you like. In case you haven't noticed, this country is going broke! And the liberal solution is to raise taxes and spend more which in effect will make us go broke at a faster rate. Conservatives want to cut spending and lower taxes which in turn will boost our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point. One groups wants one thing, and won't budge on the issue, and the opposite group does the same. Get a clue, *government is about compromise. Government is about bettering your society, for the whole, not a few elitists. * But we have seemed to lose that notion. However, as long as we have the babies in Congress, that are so blinded by party hatred, we will continue to go down the toilet.
> 
> One example:
> Obama and the dems tried to get legislation passed that would offer huge tax incentives for large corporations to bring their factories back home to America, to boost OUR economy, and the repubs shot it down.... hhhmmmm and the repubs want us to believe they have "us" in their best interest?
Click to expand...

How do you come to the conclusion that governing is about compromise?

Do we compromise on the notion that people who murder other people should not be jailed?

Do we compromise on the notion that if we are attacked by another country, the perhaps we shouldn't fight back?

The fact is that for any country to survive, clear choices and hard decisions must be made.  To compromise on those decisions is the path to ruin..  

Witness the GOP.  They have adopted a policy of compromise for the past 20 years.  It has weakened us as a nation, it has brought our economy to the very brink of ruin, and our societal rot has increased almost exponentially.

Compromise?  No thanks.  You can have it.


----------



## Redfish

Dot Com said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poet said:
> 
> 
> 
> As does, conservatism (also known as "fascism").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> conservatives want small unintrusive government----the exact opposite of fascism.
> 
> you really don't know much about this do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you better run, don't walk away from the Repub party because they're wedded to the Pentagon contractors  Thats revenue taken DIRECTLY from YOUR tax dollars and sent to favored contractors.
Click to expand...


Both parties are equally guilty of that.   I spent my entire working life working with and for defense contractors.   They do just as well under dems as pubs.  

Defense contractors did very well during Kennedy and Johnson's viet nam war.

dems also spend our tax dollars of things like planned parenthood and Acorn,  do you support that spending?


----------



## poet

Redfish said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> some might,  many republicans are liberals.   the problem is not the party, the problem is the ideology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Where is the evidence of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain, the pre-breakup USSR, Rome, the Mayans, the Egyptians, the Axtecs, ancient greece,    liberal ideology brought them all down.
> 
> Now, look at China,  no liberalism there----socialism, but not liberalism, and china has survived for thousands of years.
> 
> I am not advocating socialism, just pointing out the failures of liberalism(using today's definition of liberalism)
Click to expand...


LOL. How simplistic. Provide the evidence for your claims, because I don't believe it.


----------



## poet

Redfish said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> correction:   I do not hate liberals.   I hate liberalism, because it destroys civilizations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As does, conservatism (also known as "fascism").
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> conservatives want small unintrusive government----the exact opposite of fascism.
> 
> you really don't know much about this do you?
Click to expand...


Really? Then please explain the intrusiveness of conservatives (read: Republicans) into the bedrooms of Americans, women's bodies and their contents, and what people choose to do (like smoke pot)?????? Such hypocrisy. 

Fascism (pron.: /&#712;fæ&#643;&#618;z&#601;m/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in mid-20th century Europe. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state*(A "Christian" one??????)   *that promotes the mass mobilization of the national community,[3][4] relying on a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation on fascist principles.[5] *Hostile to democracy, liberalism, socialism, and communism, fascist movements share certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism, ethnocentrism, and militarism*.* Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation[3][6][7][8] and asserts that "superior" nations and races should attain living space by displacing weak and inferior ones*.[9]



Sounds like the Republican Party to me.


----------



## Redfish

poet said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poet said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Where is the evidence of that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain, the pre-breakup USSR, Rome, the Mayans, the Egyptians, the Axtecs, ancient greece,    liberal ideology brought them all down.
> 
> Now, look at China,  no liberalism there----socialism, but not liberalism, and china has survived for thousands of years.
> 
> I am not advocating socialism, just pointing out the failures of liberalism(using today's definition of liberalism)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. How simplistic. Provide the evidence for your claims, because I don't believe it.
Click to expand...


I don't give a flying shit if you believe it.   Go to the library and check out a couple of world history books.   If you can read you might actually learn something about how liberalism has failed throughout history.  


History is many times simplistic and obvious.   But you have to open your eyes and brain to the truth.

I wonder if you are capable of that.


----------



## AVG-JOE

WethePeopleUS said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> because their ideology trumps their common sense.
> 
> because they are genetically defective
> 
> because they lie
> 
> because they hate freedom
> 
> because they want to be slaves to the government
> 
> because they ignore the constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the republicans wouldn't dare do what you mentioned above....
Click to expand...


Too late, Bro'...  All except for the genetically defective part - What is 'normal'?


----------



## Uncensored2008

AVG-JOE said:


> Too late, Bro'...  All except for the genetically defective part - What is 'normal'?



Avg-joe; do you believe that most people will be better off under the trickle-up-poverty you support?


----------



## Redfish

poet said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poet said:
> 
> 
> 
> As does, conservatism (also known as "fascism").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> conservatives want small unintrusive government----the exact opposite of fascism.
> 
> you really don't know much about this do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Then please explain the intrusiveness of conservatives (read: Republicans) into the bedrooms of Americans, women's bodies and their contents, and what people choose to do (like smoke pot)?????? Such hypocrisy.
> 
> Fascism (pron.: /&#712;fæ&#643;&#618;z&#601;m/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in mid-20th century Europe. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state*(A "Christian" one??????)   *that promotes the mass mobilization of the national community,[3][4] relying on a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation on fascist principles.[5] *Hostile to democracy, liberalism, socialism, and communism, fascist movements share certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism, ethnocentrism, and militarism*.* Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation[3][6][7][8] and asserts that "superior" nations and races should attain living space by displacing weak and inferior ones*.[9]
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Republican Party to me.
Click to expand...


being opposed to the murder of unborn children is neither conservative or liberal,  it is a moral question not a political one.

most true conservatives would favor legalization of pot.   

gay marriage is another moral rather than political issue------either you believe its wrong or you believe its OK.   

you libs always try to mix politics with morals.    anyone who does not share your morals is the enemy and is to be destroyed.  

liberalism is a philosophy of hate and exclusion and slavery to the government and mind control.    like liberalism?  move to cuba or north korea.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Redfish said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> because their ideology trumps their common sense.
> 
> because they are genetically defective
> 
> because they lie
> 
> because they hate freedom
> 
> because they want to be slaves to the government
> 
> because they ignore the constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was unaware that liberals were hated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> correction:   I do not hate liberals.   I hate liberalism, because it destroys civilizations
Click to expand...




Education.
Education.​Education.​
http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html


----------



## AVG-JOE

Uncensored2008 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Trickle-down has worked SO well!
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that the trickle-up-poverty of Stupid Fuck Economics that you Obamunists use are somehow better?
> 
> Yet you still promote trickle-up-poverty. Like the middle class should embrace their slide into oblivion.
Click to expand...


How the fuck does poo-pooing Trickle-down economics translate into *support* of anything?

If you're interested in what I do advocate, it's fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, transparency in all things politics and major investing in education.

That's the politics that will build an economy that Monkeys can drive to the stars.


----------



## Uncensored2008

AVG-JOE said:


> Education.
> Education.​Education.​
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html



More leftist bullshit.

This board as a microcosm illustrates a group of conservative/libertarians who are substantially better educated than the leftists. Nearly every conservative here is a college graduate. Most of us have graduate degrees. 

Now you of the left do have Truthmatters and Jakestarkey as your brain trust, but I'd still rate the education of the right quite a bit higher than that of the left.


----------



## Truthseeker420

> A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "*fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity*".
> 
> ...."This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.



Study of Bush's psyche touches a nerve | World news | The Guardian


----------



## Uncensored2008

AVG-JOE said:


> How the fuck does poo-pooing Trickle-down economics translate to *support* of anything?




Poo-pooing "trickle down economics" merely displays your lack of education and your partisanship.

"Trickle Down" is a straw man, a logical fallacy. It has no meaning in economics, and is purely a partisan term.



> If you're interested in what I do advocate, it's fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, transparency in all things politics and major investing in education.



So, higher payments to public unions and a greater burden on the productive sector? Transparency? Obama is the least transparent president in history, yet you treat him as if he were a god.

A balanced budget would be nice, but again, Obama's trickle-up-poverty has added more debt than any other administration in history. And shows no signs of greater restraint, quite the opposite.



> That's the politics that will build an economy that the Monkeys can drive to the stars.



Honestly, you demonstrate utterly no understanding of macro-economics. You toss out nonsense terms to demonstrate your hatred of your political opponents, but show no grasp at all of market mechanisms. I doubt you really have any understanding of what "supply side" means, or why Keynesians oppose it. I doubt you grasp that Keynesian theory is a proven, and utter failure. I doubt that you grasp that the failed policies of Nixon, Ford, and Carter are exactly what Obama advocates - despite a proven record of abysmal failure.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthseeker420 said:


> A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "*fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity*".
> 
> ...."This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Study of Bush's psyche touches a nerve | World news | The Guardian
Click to expand...


The heart of demagoguery, as Goebbels noted, is not to claim your opponent wrong, but to demand that he is mentally incompetent and a danger to society. When a demagogue speaks, he uses contrived authority to back claims of moral, mental, and physical perversion in the target of his demagoguery. The greatest effect can be gained through an appearance of authority. A man claiming that a Jew (conservative) is subhuman may excite (Nazi) party members, but will do little to sway the public. A university professor holding a study concocted by the party, has authority when he declare the Jew (conservative) to be defective and degenerate.


----------



## Borillar

Darkwind said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's more about ideology than simply party. And yes, I want conservatives to stand up for their principles no matter what. You can call that pouting, whining, throwing temper tantrums or whatever you like. In case you haven't noticed, this country is going broke! And the liberal solution is to raise taxes and spend more which in effect will make us go broke at a faster rate. Conservatives want to cut spending and lower taxes which in turn will boost our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point. One groups wants one thing, and won't budge on the issue, and the opposite group does the same. Get a clue, *government is about compromise. Government is about bettering your society, for the whole, not a few elitists. * But we have seemed to lose that notion. However, as long as we have the babies in Congress, that are so blinded by party hatred, we will continue to go down the toilet.
> 
> One example:
> Obama and the dems tried to get legislation passed that would offer huge tax incentives for large corporations to bring their factories back home to America, to boost OUR economy, and the repubs shot it down.... hhhmmmm and the repubs want us to believe they have "us" in their best interest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you come to the conclusion that governing is about compromise?
> 
> Do we compromise on the notion that people who murder other people should not be jailed?
> 
> Do we compromise on the notion that if we are attacked by another country, the perhaps we shouldn't fight back?
> 
> The fact is that for any country to survive, clear choices and hard decisions must be made.  To compromise on those decisions is the path to ruin..
> 
> Witness the GOP.  They have adopted a policy of compromise for the past 20 years.  It has weakened us as a nation, it has brought our economy to the very brink of ruin, and our societal rot has increased almost exponentially.
> 
> Compromise?  No thanks.  You can have it.
Click to expand...


Haven't seen the Republicans compromise on much of anything in the past 20 years. When a Democrat is President, the Republicans have clearly been against any sort of compromise or accommodation. They will even be against the very things they were for if a Democrat takes it up. "Compromise? No thanks. You can have it." I guess you must be ecstatic with the Republican party of the past decade or so.


----------



## Truthseeker420

Uncensored2008 said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "*fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity*".
> 
> ...."This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Study of Bush's psyche touches a nerve | World news | The Guardian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The heart of demagoguery, as Goebbels noted, is not to claim your opponent wrong, but to demand that he is mentally incompetent and a danger to society. When a demagogue speaks, he uses contrived authority to back claims of moral, mental, and physical perversion in the target of his demagoguery. The greatest effect can be gained through an appearance of authority. A man claiming that a Jew (conservative) is subhuman may excite (Nazi) party members, but will do little to sway the public. A university professor holding a study concocted by the party, has authority when he declare the Jew (conservative) to be defective and degenerate.
Click to expand...


You are engaging in ad hominem.


----------



## numan

Uncensored2008 said:


> This board as a microcosm illustrates a group of conservative/libertarians who are substantially better educated than the leftists. Nearly every conservative here is a college graduate. Most of us have graduate degrees.


And yet so many of you are so very uneducated.

But, then, I guess, that is America.

Even the uneducated can have a college degree.
.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Redfish said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> correction:   I do not hate liberals.   I hate liberalism, because it destroys civilizations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As does, conservatism (also known as "fascism").
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> conservatives want small unintrusive government----the exact opposite of fascism.
> 
> you really don't know much about this do you?
Click to expand...


"conservatives want small unintrusive government" - bahahahahahahahahahahaha  YEA, TELLING A WOMAN WHAT SHE CAN AND CAN'T DO WITH HER BODY IS UNINTRUSIVE!!!!  THAT IS ABOUT AS INTRUSIVE AS ONE CAN BE.


----------



## numan

Redfish said:


> conservatives want small unintrusive government----


----in order to support vast, monolithic, transnational, crony-capitalist, mega-corporation monopolies.
.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Today's so called liberals do not believe in liberty they thrive on control.


----------



## Ernie S.

American_Jihad said:


> *Bill Ayers Fan Stages Fake Republican Rape Threat Against Herself to Protest Rape Culture*
> 
> May 1, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meg Lanker-Simons and husband.
> (looks like liberal trailer trash)
> 
> Meg Lanker-Simons once fought to bring Bill Ayers to speak on campus, but I suspect the WU bigwig would be underwhelmed by the scope of her criminal ambition which consisted of faking a rape threat against herself from a Republican and then staging rallies to protest Rape Culture.
> 
> This was the scene on April 28 as hundreds gathered to denounce rape culture on the University of Wyoming campus. But the only rape culture that the rape culture gang could find was the one they manufactured.
> 
> ...
> 
> Bill Ayers Fan Stages Fake Republican Rape Threat Against Herself to Protest Rape Culture | FrontPage Magazine


For very personal reasons, I believe this piece of trash should be imprisoned for 40 to life.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Lonestar_logic said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to disprove your point I just thought you had over simplified things.
> 
> I wouldn't compromise on my principles. Would you?
> 
> What specific legislation would *that* be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't attacking you bro, just saying that you had further proved my point. As you stated, you wouldn't budge on your principles. That is exactly what is wrong with Congress. They simply won't budge. Being a Political Science major with a concentration in Law, I have learned very well, that government is about compromise. Not everyone will get exactly what they want, but that is the definition of compromise:
> Compromise:
> Noun:
> An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
> 
> However, our politicians today are reluctant to heed to concessions, and that is pathetic. I have seen 9 year olds work out their problems better than the grown men in Congress.. kinda makes one wonder....
> 
> And to answer your question, yes I would compromise on my principles, if it was to better my country. I would not have the audacity to sit there, and say it's my way or the highway. It is not solely my country, and it is not only Congress's country. There are 300+ million people to consider, and if I have to compromise on some of my principles to better the lives of as many people as possible, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would do it. I however, am not selfish, and think more about other people than your average citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservative principles are limited government, individual freedom, strong national defense, free enterprise and traditional American values.
> 
> I wouldn't compromise on any of these principles for the simple fact that these principles are better for this country.
Click to expand...


How can you sit there and tell me conservatives want limited government, and individual freedom? If that were the case, then they would have no problem with woman getting abortions, gays being able to have the same basic rights as heterosexual couples, women making the same amount of money as her male counterpart, just to name a few. All of these clearly violate your argument that conservatives want limited government, and individual freedom. Telling a woman what she can and can't do, is directly violating individual freedom. The conservative party might have good ideals, but they practice the complete opposite. They do not like to practice what they preach, and it is evident to anyone who knows the way they vote. They are twisted. They say, "Ohh we want limited government. But we are gonna tell you what you can and can't do with your life." Do you see the irony?


----------



## regent

"For the framers of the constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."  
General Douglas MacArthur


----------



## buckeye45_73

regent said:


> "For the framers of the constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
> General Douglas MacArthur


 

yeah, but you're so confused...those are classical liberals....you know people who wanted SMALLER governement.....LESS POWERFUL government, and more LIBERY And FREEDOM......


----------



## bripat9643

Borillar said:


> Haven't seen the Republicans compromise on much of anything in the past 20 years. When a Democrat is President, the Republicans have clearly been against any sort of compromise or accommodation. They will even be against the very things they were for if a Democrat takes it up. "Compromise? No thanks. You can have it." I guess you must be ecstatic with the Republican party of the past decade or so.



The republicans just compromised on a $660 billion tax increase, asshole.

What have democrats ever compromised on?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthseeker420 said:


> You are engaging in ad hominem.



Is that right, Herr Goebbels?


----------



## numan

Redfish said:


> being opposed to the murder of unborn children is neither conservative or liberal,  it is a moral question not a political one.


Yet you cannot prove that a human fetus is truly any more "human" than a fish fetus. In fact, the scientific evidence supports the opposite view.

You merely *ASSERT* that your view is true, it has never been proven.

Yet you demand that your personal opinion must be believed, and that anyone who doesn't do what you want them to do should be thrown in prison and suffer other penalties.

You are not liberal, since you reject scientific analysis and support religious dogma. You are not conservative, since you do not think that the state should butt out of people's private affairs as much as possible.

What you are is a totalitarian, who demands that other people follow your will, no matter how irrational you may be.
.


----------



## Truthseeker420

Uncensored2008 said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are engaging in ad hominem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that right, Herr Goebbels?
Click to expand...


 well... you could have just said fuck you.


----------



## numan

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it.The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.


I think you would need to live here for a while in order to understand America -- there is so little in Finland that could really prepare you for the American Experience (ideally, you would need to be born and raised here, but I would not wish that on anyone).

A large segment of Americans are rather dopey, _very_ uneducated, quite tetchy and humorless, and have tendencies to become hysterical about unimportant matters. These are basic characteristics which are well-documented all through American history.

Superimposed on these elements of national charcter, they have, in recent years (since the Second World War), been subjected to what is probably the most intense, prolonged and sophisticated program of brainwashing and mental control which has ever existed in human history. This brainwashing and conditioning is carried out mainly through television, mass entertainment,  advertising and public "education", but there are many, many other adjuncts which, in total, constitute an almost constant regime of mind control.

This gives American thought and emotion, in general, a uniformity which is quite beyond the experience of a reasonably educated European. 

The strong tendencies toward hysteria and tetchiness (a word which is very American, and perhaps untranslatable into other languages)  make Americans ideal subjects for their rulers and controllers to turn into suspicious haters of unreal enemies. In this way, Americans are manipulated into forgetting and remaining unaware of their own best interests, and expending their time and emotions fighting imaginary threats and unreal problems. 

In the 1950's the bogeyman was the "Commies", and the program of brainwashing then was so crude and blatant that very little of the television "entertainment" and other records of the time are ever seen by our modern population. The obviousness of the brainwashing would too likely let the cat out of the bag and make people aware of the brainwashing process. Ironically, in the 1950's, "liberal" and "liberalism" were terms of praise, representing the noble alternative to "Communist totalitarianism".  Since modern brainwashing has as one of its chief goals the obliteration of human powers of recollection, almost no one today remembers this fact, and the young are never exposed to any historical artifacts which might reveal it.

Today, the "Commie" enemy having disappeared with disconcerting speed, the Great Satan has been replaced by more etiolated enemies -- liberals and muslims. It has been hard work to build them up as believable threats, but Americans are nothing if not industrious in lying, and the goal has been achieved.

I think it is important for people in Finland and similar countries to realize that Americans have almost no sense of community. Finns are a small group of people, speaking a language unknown by the rest of the world, sharing a common history of struggle to remain unassimilated by more powerful cultures around them. This gives them much more a sense of "being all in it together", which was perhaps present in Britain for a brief period during the Second World War, but which definitely is not a part of the American Experience. Americans have had a dominant "get rich quick" ethos right from the beginning, a tendency to rootlessness and "moving on",  and a tendency to "do unto others before they do unto me." They have so little sense of coming from somewhere, that very often they do not know even the names of their great-grandparents!

All this is, perhaps, the very antithesis of what it means to be a Finn.  It also, I think, explains why so many Americans are so cold and callous toward their fellow citizens and so nasty to those more unfortunate than themselves.

Poor Ayn Rand!! She spent her life fighting for a society of Selfishness, and never really realized that her Ideal was already achieved, to unexampled perfection, in the American society all around her!!
.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Darkwind said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's more about ideology than simply party. And yes, I want conservatives to stand up for their principles no matter what. You can call that pouting, whining, throwing temper tantrums or whatever you like. In case you haven't noticed, this country is going broke! And the liberal solution is to raise taxes and spend more which in effect will make us go broke at a faster rate. Conservatives want to cut spending and lower taxes which in turn will boost our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point. One groups wants one thing, and won't budge on the issue, and the opposite group does the same. Get a clue, *government is about compromise. Government is about bettering your society, for the whole, not a few elitists. * But we have seemed to lose that notion. However, as long as we have the babies in Congress, that are so blinded by party hatred, we will continue to go down the toilet.
> 
> One example:
> Obama and the dems tried to get legislation passed that would offer huge tax incentives for large corporations to bring their factories back home to America, to boost OUR economy, and the repubs shot it down.... hhhmmmm and the repubs want us to believe they have "us" in their best interest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you come to the conclusion that governing is about compromise?
> 
> Do we compromise on the notion that people who murder other people should not be jailed?
> 
> Do we compromise on the notion that if we are attacked by another country, the perhaps we shouldn't fight back?
> 
> The fact is that for any country to survive, clear choices and hard decisions must be made.  To compromise on those decisions is the path to ruin..
> 
> Witness the GOP.  They have adopted a policy of compromise for the past 20 years.  It has weakened us as a nation, it has brought our economy to the very brink of ruin, and our societal rot has increased almost exponentially.
> 
> Compromise?  No thanks.  You can have it.
Click to expand...


Are you serious? First I will address what you have stated:

*Do we compromise on the notion that people who murder other people should not be jailed?*

There is no need for compromise here, because the entire civilized world has deemed murder to be a taboo, to which you are either jailed, or executed. So this argument is irrelevant.

*Do we compromise on the notion that if we are attacked by another country, the perhaps we shouldn't fight back?*
Irrelevant again. Every sovereign nation with an army would attack back if attacked first, and would be justified to do so under the Just War Theory. Moot point.


*Witness the GOP.  They have adopted a policy of compromise for the past 20 years.  It has weakened us as a nation, it has brought our economy to the very brink of ruin, and our societal rot has increased almost exponentially.*

You are using the GOP as an example as to why compromise fails hahaha those idiots don't know the meaning of compromise. Try again, and try not to use the GOP as an example. 
*
How do you come to the conclusion that governing is about compromise?*

And I saved the best for last!! How did I come to the conclusion that governing is about compromise...hhhmmmm.. maybe by listening when I was being taught American History. I will provide some examples for you:

Had we NOT been into compromising, we would have never even gotten our Constitution passed, nor our Declaration of Independence. I will elaborate. When the original draft of the Declaration was submitted, it mentioned that slavery was immoral. However, the southern states said they would refuse to sign it, if that wasn't taken out. Was it taken out? Yes! What do we call that: compromise

Moving on. When the Constitutional Convention was taking place, there was a great deal of arguing going on about how we would choose representatives for our government. The large states wanted it done on population, while the smaller states wanted a certain, fixed number from each state. What happened: faced with a problem over representation: One group wanted one way, the other group another. What did we do? That's right, compromise. We made 2 houses, the Senate, which would be 2 reps from each state, and then we created the House of reps, to where members would be elected on population. 

Need I go on, or do you get the picture? Like I said originally, government is about compromise. It is at the very core of our foundation.


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> ----in order to support vast, monolithic, transnational, crony-capitalist, mega-corporation monopolies.
> .



Numan, utilizing all 40 of your IQ points, can you explain how establishing a system where the federal government uses it's power of coercion to force consumers to buy the products of favored corporations is anything other than "crony capitalism?"


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> Yet you cannot prove that a human fetus is truly any more "human" than a fish fetus.



ROFL

My gawd but you're stupid fuck.

Hey shit fer brains, what if we were to, you know, do a DNA sample? Do you think it would come up as Ahi?



> In fact, the scientific evidence supports the opposite view.



ROFL

You ignorant cow - no, science pretty well has proven than human offspring are human.

Stick to the hate sites retard, science ain't your forte'.



> You merely *ASSERT* that your view is true, it has never been proven.
> 
> Yet you demand that your personal opinion must be believed, and that anyone who doesn't do what you want them to do should be thrown in prison and suffer other penalties.
> 
> You are not liberal, since you reject scientific analysis and support religious dogma. You are not conservative, since you do not think that the state should butt out of people's private affairs as much as possible.
> 
> What you are is a totalitarian, who demands that other people follow your will, no matter how irrational you may be.
> .



*Edit:  No content trolling.*


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthseeker420 said:


> well... you could have just said fuck you.



If I were an ignorant feral baboon, such as you, I'm sure I would have.

You are a demagogue - a hate filled partisan who seeks to demonize the political opposition. 

Yeah, it does make you a scumbag - Herr Goebbels.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Redfish said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> conservatives want small unintrusive government----the exact opposite of fascism.
> 
> you really don't know much about this do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then please explain the intrusiveness of conservatives (read: Republicans) into the bedrooms of Americans, women's bodies and their contents, and what people choose to do (like smoke pot)?????? Such hypocrisy.
> 
> Fascism (pron.: /&#712;fæ&#643;&#618;z&#601;m/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in mid-20th century Europe. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state*(A "Christian" one??????)   *that promotes the mass mobilization of the national community,[3][4] relying on a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation on fascist principles.[5] *Hostile to democracy, liberalism, socialism, and communism, fascist movements share certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism, ethnocentrism, and militarism*.* Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation[3][6][7][8] and asserts that "superior" nations and races should attain living space by displacing weak and inferior ones*.[9]
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Republican Party to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> being opposed to the murder of unborn children is neither conservative or liberal,  it is a moral question not a political one.
> 
> most true conservatives would favor legalization of pot.
> 
> gay marriage is another moral rather than political issue------either you believe its wrong or you believe its OK.
> 
> you libs always try to mix politics with morals.    anyone who does not share your morals is the enemy and is to be destroyed.
> 
> liberalism is a philosophy of hate and exclusion and slavery to the government and mind control.    like liberalism?  move to cuba or north korea.
Click to expand...


*being opposed to the murder of unborn children is neither conservative or liberal,  it is a moral question not a political one.*
So why in the hell does it take up so much of our political debate. If it is solely a moral issue, then it is simple:* If you are against abortions, do not have one
*
*
most true conservatives would favor legalization of pot*.   
I guess it's just too bad those "true" conservatives you speak of don't exist in our government..

*gay marriage is another moral rather than political issue------either you believe its wrong or you believe its OK.   *
Yet again, if this issue is of a moral one, rather than political, why the hell are we waisting so much time on it? If you don't like gays getting married, ohh well, deal with it. There are plenty of things in life to get upset over, and whether Harry and Steve or Lyndsy and Caroline want to get married should not be high on the list. I mean, if you are advocating limited government, and individual freedoms. 

*you libs always try to mix politics with morals.    anyone who does not share your morals is the enemy and is to be destroyed.  *

I'm not a liberal (I am independent), but isn't that a bit of the pot calling the kettle black? Think about it...


*liberalism is a philosophy of hate and exclusion and slavery to the government and mind control.    like liberalism?  move to cuba or north korea.
*

Hahaha I think you might be confused about liberalism. There is American Liberalism (contemporary liberalism), and classical liberalism. This might help:

Contemporary Liberalism-a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution.

 Contemporary Liberalism consists of separate and often contradictory streams of thought springing from a common ancestry; the intellectual parent of these variants has not only endured intact, it has outlived some of its offspring and shown more intellectual stamina than others. The tenets of this parent, known as classical liberalism, have answered the needs and the challenges of over three centuries in the West. By observing its past and discovering how it responded to the dramatic historical dynamics of economic, technological, political, and social changes we may understand how classical liberalism provides a strong foundation for the future.

For the purpose of this chronology and analysis, I shall apply a broad set of criteria to determine if an idea or individual fits within this intellectual tradition. In this context, classical liberalism includes the following:

    an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,
    the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,
    the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and
    the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions

Now, hopefully you can see that classical liberalism, or rather, true liberalism is not far from what you American conservatives preach. If you chose to do your homework you would be able to see that. 

The Rise, Decline, and Reemergence of Classical Liberalism


----------



## Lonestar_logic

WethePeopleUS said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't attacking you bro, just saying that you had further proved my point. As you stated, you wouldn't budge on your principles. That is exactly what is wrong with Congress. They simply won't budge. Being a Political Science major with a concentration in Law, I have learned very well, that government is about compromise. Not everyone will get exactly what they want, but that is the definition of compromise:
> Compromise:
> Noun:
> An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
> 
> However, our politicians today are reluctant to heed to concessions, and that is pathetic. I have seen 9 year olds work out their problems better than the grown men in Congress.. kinda makes one wonder....
> 
> And to answer your question, yes I would compromise on my principles, if it was to better my country. I would not have the audacity to sit there, and say it's my way or the highway. It is not solely my country, and it is not only Congress's country. There are 300+ million people to consider, and if I have to compromise on some of my principles to better the lives of as many people as possible, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would do it. I however, am not selfish, and think more about other people than your average citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative principles are limited government, individual freedom, strong national defense, free enterprise and traditional American values.
> 
> I wouldn't compromise on any of these principles for the simple fact that these principles are better for this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you sit there and tell me conservatives want limited government, and individual freedom? If that were the case, then they would have no problem with woman getting abortions, gays being able to have the same basic rights as heterosexual couples, women making the same amount of money as her male counterpart, just to name a few. All of these clearly violate your argument that conservatives want limited government, and individual freedom. Telling a woman what she can and can't do, is directly violating individual freedom. The conservative party might have good ideals, but they practice the complete opposite. They do not like to practice what they preach, and it is evident to anyone who knows the way they vote. They are twisted. They say, "Ohh we want limited government. But we are gonna tell you what you can and can't do with your life." Do you see the irony?
Click to expand...


Pro-life people have a problem with abortions. From a government standpoint us conservatives don't believe federal dollars should be spent toward abortions.

As for marriage, it has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals wish to change the definition. And since a marriage license is a binding contract there must be a clear definition.

How are conservatives telling women what they can or can't do? Specifically.

We have no problem with women making the same as men. And I imagine your referring to the Lilly Ledbetter Act which was passed into law or perhaps the Paycheck Fairness Act that was blocked by the House. The reasons conservatives opposed it was because it would lead to more discrimination lawsuits which would be more costly to employers and at a time when the economy is weak and unemployment high would not be a good idea. And remember this wasn't new legislation this was basically an addition to an existing law.

You will have to provide specific examples of how the Republicans want to tell you" what you can and can't do with your life".


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Matthew said:


> Their economic theory's are destructive.



 Yep...right along with their social programs.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Uncensored2008 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education.
> Education.​Education.​
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More leftist bullshit.
> 
> This board as a microcosm illustrates a group of conservative/libertarians who are substantially better educated than the leftists. Nearly every conservative here is a college graduate. Most of us have graduate degrees.
> 
> Now you of the left do have Truthmatters and Jakestarkey as your brain trust, but I'd still rate the education of the right quite a bit higher than that of the left.
Click to expand...




History sucks when it flies in the face of ones ideology, eh?


----------



## Uncensored2008

AVG-JOE said:


> History sucks when it flies in the face of ones ideology, eh?



History?

ROFL

Right....


----------



## regent

buckeye45_73 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> "For the framers of the constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
> General Douglas MacArthur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, but you're so confused...those are classical liberals....you know people who wanted SMALLER governement.....LESS POWERFUL government, and more LIBERY And FREEDOM......
Click to expand...


Of course liberals wanted smaller less powerful governments--that is until the liberals became the government. The size of government is not part of political ideology and is probably not even a means for achieving their political ideology. Today, does either side care really about the size of government except when they are our of power? Is it only used as part of their a political campaign stuff? When is the last time Republicans were elected and then proceeded to reduce the size of government?


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Lonestar_logic said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative principles are limited government, individual freedom, strong national defense, free enterprise and traditional American values.
> 
> I wouldn't compromise on any of these principles for the simple fact that these principles are better for this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you sit there and tell me conservatives want limited government, and individual freedom? If that were the case, then they would have no problem with woman getting abortions, gays being able to have the same basic rights as heterosexual couples, women making the same amount of money as her male counterpart, just to name a few. All of these clearly violate your argument that conservatives want limited government, and individual freedom. Telling a woman what she can and can't do, is directly violating individual freedom. The conservative party might have good ideals, but they practice the complete opposite. They do not like to practice what they preach, and it is evident to anyone who knows the way they vote. They are twisted. They say, "Ohh we want limited government. But we are gonna tell you what you can and can't do with your life." Do you see the irony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pro-life people have a problem with abortions. From a government standpoint us conservatives don't believe federal dollars should be spent toward abortions.
> 
> As for marriage, it has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals wish to change the definition. And since a marriage license is a binding contract there must be a clear definition.
> 
> How are conservatives telling women what they can or can't do? Specifically.
> 
> We have no problem with women making the same as men. And I imagine your referring to the Lilly Ledbetter Act which was passed into law or perhaps the Paycheck Fairness Act that was blocked by the House. The reasons conservatives opposed it was because it would lead to more discrimination lawsuits which would be more costly to employers and at a time when the economy is weak and unemployment high would not be a good idea. And remember this wasn't new legislation this was basically an addition to an existing law.
> 
> You will have to provide specific examples of how the Republicans want to tell you" what you can and can't do with your life".
Click to expand...


*Pro-life people have a problem with abortions. From a government standpoint us conservatives don't believe federal dollars should be spent toward abortions.*

Really? Are you sure about that? Because I am about to provide evidence on how the GOP is trying to make abortions illegal. Not that they are trying to stop federal funding for them.. no no no, that is not what they are trying to do. They are trying to make it illegal (not possible) for a woman to have one. Here are some facts/links for your enlightenment:

Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.

In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care

In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life. 

^Source: MoveOn.org Political Action: Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP&#39;s War on Women

A Republican lawmaker, a woman, has introduced a bill in the New Mexico legislature that would make abortion illegal for victims of rape.

^Source:
GOP bill: Abortion after rape is tampering with evidence - Philly.com

And if that isn't enough, here is how much they hate abortions in Michigan:

Can something be "more illegal" than it already is? I guess it can if you are a Michigan Republican. Yesterday, the Michigan state House and Senate both passed bills that outlaw so-called "partial birth abortions".

Source:
Daily Kos: Michigan Republicans vote to make illegal abortions illegal

Forty years after the Roe v. Wade decision made abortion legal and recognized a womans right to control her body and her life, the issue may well be headed back to the Supreme Court.

Opponents of abortion rights have been patiently and methodically chipping away at the 1973 decision, getting laws passed that restrict the circumstances under which women can exercise their right to have a legal abortion, and making it harder for doctors to provide abortions or even abortion counseling. Republican governors and legislatures in several states, notably Texas, have made an even broader assault on womens health by trying to close clinics that provide birth control counseling, breast cancer screening and other important services.

Source:
North Dakota, Arkansas Pass Abortion Restrictions - NYTimes.com

I do not think I need to go on about how conservatives are trying to make abortion illegal. 

*As for marriage, it has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals wish to change the definition. And since a marriage license is a binding contract there must be a clear definition.*

Wrong. This might help you. Holy Matrimony IS a union between a man and a woman. Marriage, however, is a civil contract, performed by the state. 

Marriage versus holy matrimony

I would suggest to John Kass (As times change, will tolerance for tradition be tolerated? Column, March 27) that there is a difference between "holy matrimony,  sanctioned by God  and "marriage  a legal union regulated and licensed by the state. One does not have to lose or deny his religious beliefs about what constitutes holy matrimony while recognizing and accepting the legality of a same-sex marriage.

There are faiths and churches today that still refuse to marry two individuals of different faiths due to religious convictions. Yet it is the state that recognizes, and may even conduct, a legal marriage between the two. At least one major religion does not recognize divorce within its faith, yet the state does.

Source:
Marriage versus holy matrimony - Chicago Tribune

*How are conservatives telling women what they can or can't do? Specifically.*

How is telling a woman what she can and can't do with her reproductive organs, NOT telling her what she can/can't do? If the government tomorrow, started making laws about vasectomies and when men can and can't get one, I bet you among many others, would be all over them, telling them to fuck off, and they have no right to tell you what you can and can't do with your reproductive organs. YET you among others have absolutely NO problem telling women what they can/can't do. If you can't see that, then that is your own short-falling.   


*We have no problem with women making the same as men. And I imagine your referring to the Lilly Ledbetter Act which was passed into law or perhaps the Paycheck Fairness Act that was blocked by the House. The reasons conservatives opposed it was because it would lead to more discrimination lawsuits which would be more costly to employers and at a time when the economy is weak and unemployment high would not be a good idea. And remember this wasn't new legislation this was basically an addition to an existing law.*

Wow! you have no problem with women making as much as men, yet conservatives shoot down the Paycheck Fairness Act every time it comes to vote. And you mean to tell me that the reason for that is because of the lawsuits that would come of it? Well if the country is in such a bad place that if we made a law making it illegal to pay different based on sex, we would fall into some great depression, or that it would have some huge detrimental effect, I can tell you one thing: the longer we wait to enact that, the worse it is going to get. Unless however, you never plan on paying a woman as much as a man. But since you claim you do, better hurry up before all those legit lawsuits cripple our country past recovery. If the corporation have to pay the piper for all the discrimination they have exercised over women the past 50+ years, then so be it. It is high time those people pay for their mistakes, and wrongdoings. And the Lilly Ledbetter Act was a cop-out for not passing the Paycheck Fairness Act. It was the conservatives compromise. They agreed to not put the 180 day from the first paycheck limit on suing a company once gaining knowledge of unfair pay. So, instead of allowing women to make as much as a man, the conservatives said that there is no time limit on how long a woman can sue a company for unfair pay. You people that follow this idiotic line of reasoning are despicable human beings. You want to tell your daughter, or your mom, or your sister, "Sorry sweetheart, you just will never make as much as a man. But thats okay, because you can sue companies if you happen to find out that you are getting paid unfairly." Instead of telling the aforementioned, "Sweetheart, we fought hard, and now, you will make just as much as a man, if you don't the company can get into serious legal problems." 

I personally am appalled that we are even still having to debate whether or not to pay women as much as men in 2013!! The Paycheck Fairness Act was enacted in 1963, yet somehow we still don't pay women as much as men. Pathetic if you ask me. It shouldn't even be a topic of discussion. Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY should get paid the same, for doing the same job. Just because a man is doing the same job a woman is doing does not warrant the justification of paying him more. Equality is something this country has fought and bled for, yet we deprive our own citizens of the right. And who can we thank for that now: conservatives.


----------



## JWBooth

Leeches are annoying and of limited usefulness.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Liberals are like Hollanders pulling bricks out of the dykes to build houses for the poor

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## regent

Ah you see both liberals and conservatives are for individual freedom but what does that mean? Freedom for whom, freedom to do what? Does individual freedom mean freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom to do as I want, when I want? We use these glittering generalities and seldom have to define them. We say freedom and "freedom" glitters with promise and goodness. Some other glittering generalities might be patriotism, Americanism, founding fathers, red white and blue, constitution.


----------



## Uncensored2008

WethePeopleUS said:


> Really? Are you sure about that? Because I am about to provide evidence on how the GOP is trying to make abortions illegal. Not that they are trying to stop federal funding for them.. no no no, that is not what they are trying to do. They are trying to make it illegal (not possible) for a woman to have one. Here are some facts/links for your enlightenment:



You do realize that what is printed on the hate sites has no resemblance to fact, doncha?

You posting shit from MoveOn about Abortion opponents is about like posting shit from the KKK about blacks.

You have zero credibility.


----------



## Ernie S.

WethePeopleUS said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't attacking you bro, just saying that you had further proved my point. As you stated, you wouldn't budge on your principles. That is exactly what is wrong with Congress. They simply won't budge. Being a Political Science major with a concentration in Law, I have learned very well, that government is about compromise. Not everyone will get exactly what they want, but that is the definition of compromise:
> Compromise:
> Noun:
> An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
> 
> However, our politicians today are reluctant to heed to concessions, and that is pathetic. I have seen 9 year olds work out their problems better than the grown men in Congress.. kinda makes one wonder....
> 
> And to answer your question, yes I would compromise on my principles, if it was to better my country. I would not have the audacity to sit there, and say it's my way or the highway. It is not solely my country, and it is not only Congress's country. There are 300+ million people to consider, and if I have to compromise on some of my principles to better the lives of as many people as possible, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would do it. I however, am not selfish, and think more about other people than your average citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative principles are limited government, individual freedom, strong national defense, free enterprise and traditional American values.
> 
> I wouldn't compromise on any of these principles for the simple fact that these principles are better for this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you sit there and tell me conservatives want limited government, and individual freedom? If that were the case, then they would have no problem with woman getting abortions, gays being able to have the same basic rights as heterosexual couples, women making the same amount of money as her male counterpart, just to name a few. All of these clearly violate your argument that conservatives want limited government, and individual freedom. Telling a woman what she can and can't do, is directly violating individual freedom. The conservative party might have good ideals, but they practice the complete opposite. They do not like to practice what they preach, and it is evident to anyone who knows the way they vote. They are twisted. They say, "Ohh we want limited government. But we are gonna tell you what you can and can't do with your life." Do you see the irony?
Click to expand...


In a perfect world, there would need be no government intervention into the abortion debate. People would simply not even consider something so heinous. There would be no debate on "gay marriage". People would simply refer to their Funk and Wagnals and see that marriage is defined as a legal and spiritual union of one man and one woman.
People would pay their workers what they are worth without regard for their gender. If the job is carrying bricks, the worker who carries the most bricks would command the highest pay. Women, on average, can carry fewer bricks. They tend to work fewer hours over their careers due to pregnancies and gynecological problems. They are weaker physically, have less stamina, are slower and, at least stereotypically, lack the forcefulness to lead groups. Yes there are many exceptions just as there are many exceptions to the general rule that women earn less than men.
In a perfect world, there would be no need for laws against murder and rape or robbery, yet there are, because the world is NOT perfect. Every abortion, every perversion of the language, every demand that inferior workers get paid at the same rate as the superior workers, makes it a bit less perfect.
When you believe that abortion is murder, that marriage is a union of one man and one woman and when you believe that you pay an employee based on what he is worth, you do not compromise. A man must stand on principle or he is nothing.


----------



## FishfaceDeMarco

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



It would make a LOT more sense to just ask "Why do people hate."


----------



## AVG-JOE

JWBooth said:


> Leeches are annoying and of limited usefulness.



I'm rubber and you're glue - whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!  


Too bad we don't check ID's and limit this bar to grown up Monkeys...

  On the other hand, you kids can be entertaining with your recess bullying.  It's just so damned tedious.


----------



## buckeye45_73

numan said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> being opposed to the murder of unborn children is neither conservative or liberal, it is a moral question not a political one.
> 
> 
> 
> *Yet you cannot prove that a human fetus is truly any more "human" than a fish fetus. In fact, the scientific evidence supports the opposite view.*
> 
> You merely *ASSERT* that your view is true, it has never been proven.
> 
> Yet you demand that your personal opinion must be believed, and that anyone who doesn't do what you want them to do should be thrown in prison and suffer other penalties.
> 
> You are not liberal, since you reject scientific analysis and support religious dogma. You are not conservative, since you do not think that the state should butt out of people's private affairs as much as possible.
> 
> What you are is a totalitarian, who demands that other people follow your will, no matter how irrational you may be.
> .
Click to expand...

 
Is this a serious question????????

what scientific analysis?

See a human embryo is human, while a fish embryo is a fish.....it's really not that hard Einstein...

Ok dumbass prove to me infinity exists....show me an example!


----------



## AVG-JOE

Uncensored2008 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education.
> Education.​Education.​
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More leftist bullshit.
> 
> This board as a microcosm illustrates a group of conservative/libertarians who are substantially better educated than the leftists.
> *Nearly every conservative here is a college graduate. Most of us have graduate degrees. *
> 
> Now you of the left do have Truthmatters and Jakestarkey as your brain trust, but I'd still rate the education of the right quite a bit higher than that of the left.
Click to expand...


  Most?!?

I'm so glad you told me... I would have NEVER guessed!


----------



## Uncensored2008

AVG-JOE said:


> Most?!?
> 
> I'm so glad you told me... I would have NEVER guessed!



Most that I know of.


----------



## buckeye45_73

AVG-JOE said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education.
> Education.​Education.​http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More leftist bullshit.
> 
> This board as a microcosm illustrates a group of conservative/libertarians who are substantially better educated than the leftists.
> *Nearly every conservative here is a college graduate. Most of us have graduate degrees. *
> 
> Now you of the left do have Truthmatters and Jakestarkey as your brain trust, but I'd still rate the education of the right quite a bit higher than that of the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most?!?
> 
> I'm so glad you told me... I would have NEVER guessed!
Click to expand...

 

Interesting read.....but they arent direct to today.....Conservatives today, would be classical liberals.....the right wing were the monarchal supporters and the left wing were the liberals that turned into commies....like robespiere and other followers of Rousseau.

Liberals typically came from the middle class &#8211;*the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie, the professionals,* and the intellectuals''

Those are the groups that didnt support the left during the revolution and have to this day been suspicious of socialism and the left.....and the left HATES them...and uses the term bourgeoisie as an epithet (usually rolling their eyes in the process)


----------



## Uncensored2008

Why do people hate leftists?

Why do people hate mosquitoes?

Why do people hate cockroaches?

Why do people hate leeches?

Why do people hate bed bugs?

Why do people hate lice?

Why ask why?


----------



## KevinWestern

Here are some of my frustrations with _some _left-leaning folks:

1.) Many on the left accuse the right of "being in bed with the corporations, ect", yet seem to have no problem with President Obama - for example - appointing a former Monsanto exec to a top FDA spot. Dems/Repubs are funded by the very same corporations. 

2.) Lack of regard for this question: if special interests control our Congresspeople (certainly a left position, ie Occupy, ect), and our Gov't is corrupt, then why the hell would you want to give them more tax dollars? 

3.) Quickness to give up rights and "put the Federal Gov't in charge". I hear many left leaners claim the notion of a tyrannical gov't in the US is "ridiculous" and "conspiracy" and (somewhat) ignorantly ignore the fact that there's been literally hundreds of well known, documented examples of tyrannical gov'ts taking hold of countries in both the last century and prior. Heck, the leading gov't in Europe right now (Germany) just killed 6 million Jews like only 60 years ago. Japan? Italy? 

4.) The notion that regulation is always a good thing. Often times regulation is drafted by corporate lobbyists who rig the game in the favor of big business. Sometimes deregulation actually helps the little guy.

5.) The notion that wanting to shrink the Federal gov't is a bad thing, and again makes you a "poor hater", "1%er", ect. What's the problem with having more faith in a larger local gov't? 







.


----------



## Mustang

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Conservatives hate pretty much everyone and anyone who's not a member of their self-identified group.  And to be perceived as truly being a member of their self-styled brand of modern day American conservatives, you've got to be unapologetically strident and extremely vocal about your conservatism.


----------



## KevinWestern

Mustang said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate pretty much everyone and anyone who's not a member of their self-identified group.  And to be perceived as truly being a member of their self-styled brand of modern day American conservatives, you've got to be unapologetically strident and extremely vocal about your conservatism.
Click to expand...


So liberals don't do the same thing on the flip side? I get made out to be "a monster" by my lib friends for defending the second amendment - for example.

.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Uncensored2008 said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Are you sure about that? Because I am about to provide evidence on how the GOP is trying to make abortions illegal. Not that they are trying to stop federal funding for them.. no no no, that is not what they are trying to do. They are trying to make it illegal (not possible) for a woman to have one. Here are some facts/links for your enlightenment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that what is printed on the hate sites has no resemblance to fact, doncha?
> 
> You posting shit from MoveOn about Abortion opponents is about like posting shit from the KKK about blacks.
> 
> You have zero credibility.
Click to expand...


Ohhh hate sites you say. For that statement, you have lost any credibility. 

What an idiot. And what do you have to say about the other sites I cited? What about the rest of my post. YOU MUST be a republican, by taking a fragment of my argument and trying to make a mockery of it. Good job buddy!! Get on your soap box and tell the world how women should bow to men, and be our slaves!!


----------



## American_Jihad

Mustang said:


> Conservatives hate pretty much everyone and anyone who's not a member of their self-identified group.  And to be perceived as truly being a member of their self-styled brand of modern day American conservatives, you've got to be unapologetically strident and extremely vocal about your conservatism.



Update/Fix

Progressive/liberals hate pretty much everyone and anyone who's not a member of their self-identified group.  And to be perceived as truly being a member of their self-styled brand of modern day American progressive/liberals, you've got to be unapologetically strident and extremely vocal about your liberalism.

That was EZ...


----------



## American_Jihad

See what progressive/liberals do to your children...​
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgxzjrodNvI]AT&T COMMERCIAL WE WANT MORE / MORE IS BETTER "DIRECTORS CUT" 2013 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## LoudMcCloud

[ame=http://youtu.be/OS2mUa3ExgE]Roger Nicholson - Mega Rant - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## AVG-JOE

KevinWestern said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate pretty much everyone and anyone who's not a member of their self-identified group.  And to be perceived as truly being a member of their self-styled brand of modern day American conservatives, you've got to be unapologetically strident and extremely vocal about your conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So liberals don't do the same thing on the flip side? I get made out to be "a monster" by my lib friends for defending the second amendment - for example.
> 
> .
Click to expand...




American_Jihad said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate pretty much everyone and anyone who's not a member of their self-identified group.  And to be perceived as truly being a member of their self-styled brand of modern day American conservatives, you've got to be unapologetically strident and extremely vocal about your conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Update/Fix
> 
> Progressive/liberals hate pretty much everyone and anyone who's not a member of their self-identified group.  And to be perceived as truly being a member of their self-styled brand of modern day American progressive/liberals, you've got to be unapologetically strident and extremely vocal about your liberalism.
> 
> That was EZ...
Click to expand...






All sides are composed of mere Monkeys.

Monkeys are Monkeys. Passions, Appetites and Attitude.  WYGD?  


1.  Neither side has a lock on extremism.

2.  Neither side has a lock on reasonable.

3.  Neither side has a lock on intelligence.

4.  Neither side has a lock on stupid.  

See number 1 and/or 4 above when dealing with Monkeys using phrases like "all liberals..."  and "all conservatives..."


----------



## JimBowie1958

Mustang said:


> Conservatives hate pretty much everyone and anyone who's not a member of their self-identified group.



Either you are a fucking liar or you are just stupid.


Libtards want diversity in ethnicity, race, gender, etc, as long as everyone agrees on ideology; their ideology. Noone can get the Democrat nomination for PResident unless they are a cock sucking neoMArxist who hates white people.

Conservatives cant even nominate a real conservative to lead the GOP since Reagan left office in 1988. They keep letting these RINO neocons control everything. So not only do conservatives NOT hate every other group, they dont even love their own group to stand up for it... untill 2010 that is, but still too many RINOS. Romney despite having a liberal record as Massachusettes govenor, he ran the message of his 2012 campaign more consrvatively than McCain.

Conservatives tolerate a diversity of opinion and ideas, but liberals want only diversity in everything EXCEPT opinion and ideas.


----------



## AVG-JOE

JimBowie1958 said:


> Either you are a fucking liar or you are just stupid.
> 
> Conservatives tolerate a diversity of opinion and ideas, but liberals want only diversity in everything EXCEPT opinion and ideas.



​

  Good one, Dude!


----------



## JimBowie1958

LoudMcCloud said:


> Roger Nicholson - Mega Rant - YouTube



So Roger Nicholson says :

1) he grew up around guns in upper state New York; he owned them his family owned them he loves guns.

2) he says that only the dumbest people own guns, hmmm

Well, he shouldnt judge all gun owners based on his own personal experience growing up in his own family, the rest of us arent the stupid fucks he and the people he seems to have emerged from are.


----------



## poet

JimBowie1958 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate pretty much everyone and anyone who's not a member of their self-identified group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either you are a fucking liar or you are just stupid.
> 
> 
> Libtards want diversity in ethnicity, race, gender, etc, as long as everyone agrees on ideology; their ideology. Noone can get the Democrat nomination for PResident unless they are a cock sucking neoMArxist who hates white people.
> 
> Conservatives cant even nominate a real conservative to lead the GOP since Reagan left office in 1988. They keep letting these RINO neocons control everything. So not only do conservatives NOT hate every other group, they dont even love their own group to stand up for it... untill 2010 that is, but still too many RINOS. Romney despite having a liberal record as Massachusettes govenor, he ran the message of his 2012 campaign more consrvatively than McCain.
> 
> Conservatives tolerate a diversity of opinion and ideas, but liberals want only diversity in everything EXCEPT opinion and ideas.
Click to expand...

BS. Explain that shit.


----------



## JWBooth

JimBowie1958 said:


> LoudMcCloud said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roger Nicholson - Mega Rant - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Roger Nicholson says :
> 
> 1) he grew up around guns in upper state New York; he owned them his family owned them he loves guns.
> 
> 2) he says that only the dumbest people own guns, hmmm
> 
> Well, he shouldnt judge all gun owners based on his own personal experience growing up in his own family, the rest of us arent the stupid fucks he and the people he seems to have emerged from are.
Click to expand...

Well, it was New York, so go figure.


----------



## Uncensored2008

WethePeopleUS said:


> Ohhh hate sites you say. For that statement, you have lost any credibility.



Oh, *I* lose credibility; yet YOU are the one posting shit from the hate sites?

ROFL

What a buffoon.



> What an idiot. And what do you have to say about the other sites I cited?



You cited a gaggle of leftist hate sites. MoveOn, ThinkProgress, Communist Dreams. et al.

You are a mindless hack, posting party demagoguery against the hated opposition.



> What about the rest of my post. YOU MUST be a republican, by taking a fragment of my argument and trying to make a mockery of it. Good job buddy!! Get on your soap box and tell the world how women should bow to men, and be our slaves!!



You have no brain, you are a drone, programmed by the hate sites to spew shit against the opponents your rulers identify.

I doubt you've ever had an independent thought in your life.


----------



## Uncensored2008

WethePeopleUS said:


> Ohhh hate sites you say. For that statement, you have lost any credibility.
> 
> What an idiot. And what do you have to say about the other sites I cited? What about the rest of my post. YOU MUST be a republican, by taking a fragment of my argument and trying to make a mockery of it. Good job buddy!! Get on your soap box and tell the world how women should bow to men, and be our slaves!!


----------



## Old Rocks

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



There is a very real reason that 'Conservatives' express hatred toward liberals. Liberals tend to be the people that embrace neccessary change. 'Conservatives' cannot stand change, no matter how ridiculous the present situation. A prime example is our present health care system. The most expensive on the planet per capita, does not cover all citizens, and leaves us with third world statistics in longevity and infant mortality.

Another is global warming. The effects of the warming are evident everywhere. From the cryosphere to the increase in the severity and freqency of extreme weather events. Yet they not only deny that these facts exist, they also claim that 98% of the world's scientists are engaged in a fraud and conspiracy to decieve the rest of us. The neccessary steps to alleviate the future impacts would leave us with cleaner water and air, yet the 'Conservatives' absolutely hate anything that has to do with real solutions. 

There are conservatives that see the problems, and embrace or suggest changes to deal with those problems. And are immediatly labeled Rino's or worse by the 'Conservatives'. Unfortunetly, the conservatives are in the back seat of the GOP vehicle, and the 'Conservatives' are driving. Another wreck is imminent.


----------



## JoeNormal

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now Mathew, you really think that the economic theories that resulted in the First Great Republican Depression were not destructive? And that the deconstruction of the regulations that were put into place because of that Depression, leading up to October, 2008, and a very near brush with the Second Great Republican Depression, were not destuctive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve caused the panic of 1929, and then Roosevelt's economic policies extended a sharp but short recession into a depression.  Pretty much the same thing happened in 2008.  Only morons blame low taxes and deregulation for the depression.
Click to expand...


I could provide links to show you how wrong you are but I'm sure you'd never bother to read, listen to or watch them.


----------



## Redfish

Old Rocks said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a very real reason that 'Conservatives' express hatred toward liberals. Liberals tend to be the people that embrace neccessary change. 'Conservatives' cannot stand change, no matter how ridiculous the present situation. A prime example is our present health care system. The most expensive on the planet per capita, does not cover all citizens, and leaves us with third world statistics in longevity and infant mortality.
> 
> Another is global warming. The effects of the warming are evident everywhere. From the cryosphere to the increase in the severity and freqency of extreme weather events. Yet they not only deny that these facts exist, they also claim that 98% of the world's scientists are engaged in a fraud and conspiracy to decieve the rest of us. The neccessary steps to alleviate the future impacts would leave us with cleaner water and air, yet the 'Conservatives' absolutely hate anything that has to do with real solutions.
> 
> There are conservatives that see the problems, and embrace or suggest changes to deal with those problems. And are immediatly labeled Rino's or worse by the 'Conservatives'. Unfortunetly, the conservatives are in the back seat of the GOP vehicle, and the 'Conservatives' are driving. Another wreck is imminent.
Click to expand...


your rocks are so old that they have destroyed your few remaining brain cells.

global warming is a hoax, algore is a proven fraud. man is not changing the climate of planet earth.

as to fixing problems---the dem solution is always more govt spending and more taxation of working people.   it never works, never has, never will


----------



## KevinWestern

Old Rocks said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a very real reason that 'Conservatives' express hatred toward liberals. Liberals tend to be the people that embrace neccessary change. 'Conservatives' cannot stand change, no matter how ridiculous the present situation. A prime example is our present health care system. The most expensive on the planet per capita, does not cover all citizens, and leaves us with third world statistics in longevity and infant mortality.
> 
> Another is global warming. The effects of the warming are evident everywhere. From the cryosphere to the increase in the severity and freqency of extreme weather events. Yet they not only deny that these facts exist, they also claim that 98% of the world's scientists are engaged in a fraud and conspiracy to decieve the rest of us. The neccessary steps to alleviate the future impacts would leave us with cleaner water and air, yet the 'Conservatives' absolutely hate anything that has to do with real solutions.
> 
> There are conservatives that see the problems, and embrace or suggest changes to deal with those problems. And are immediatly labeled Rino's or worse by the 'Conservatives'. Unfortunetly, the conservatives are in the back seat of the GOP vehicle, and the 'Conservatives' are driving. Another wreck is imminent.
Click to expand...


I'm a conservative and are very open to change. In fact, I'd like to reduce the amount of Federal Laws (ie when it comes to drugs, regulations, ect) so that society and the individual can more fluidly decide what he/she wants to do without a large overbearing gov't deciding for us. 

I'm a conservative and are still very open to the global warming debate (as you know). 

I'm a conservative and oppose Obamacare not because I want people to be uninsured or want the cost of medicine to be high, but because I think the system was designed poorly, was drafted (in large part) by Pharma companies, and is nothing close to "Universal Healthcare". A few of my college pals are doctors and they have expressed to me a lot of concern over the Obamacare roll out. 

Are those reasonable points? 



.


----------



## bripat9643

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now Mathew, you really think that the economic theories that resulted in the First Great Republican Depression were not destructive? And that the deconstruction of the regulations that were put into place because of that Depression, leading up to October, 2008, and a very near brush with the Second Great Republican Depression, were not destuctive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve caused the panic of 1929, and then Roosevelt's economic policies extended a sharp but short recession into a depression.  Pretty much the same thing happened in 2008.  Only morons blame low taxes and deregulation for the depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could provide links to show you how wrong you are but I'm sure you'd never bother to read, listen to or watch them.
Click to expand...

 
I've read dozens of books on the subject and I can show how all your "proof" is pure bullshit.  You can find a good one here:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001KHLT8O/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title"]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001KHLT8O/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title[/ame]






Of course, we all know you won't read it.   You'll keep your nose buried in those left-wing propaganda sites.

The natural order of things is for statists to lobby for government to "solve" some problem.  Then, when their "solution" blows up in their faces, the statists blame the free market and demand further government solutions.  The creation of the Federal Reserve is a classic example of that.


----------



## Truthseeker420

Uncensored2008 said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> well... you could have just said fuck you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I were an ignorant feral baboon, such as you, I'm sure I would have.
> 
> You are a demagogue - a hate filled partisan who seeks to demonize the political opposition.
> 
> Yeah, it does make you a scumbag - Herr Goebbels.
Click to expand...


A baboon could give a better response than you're a nazi.


----------



## Granny

Matthew said:


> Their economic theory's are destructive.



Not to mention most of the other issues they gripe about.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthseeker420 said:


> Keep spinning !



The heart of demagoguery, as Goebbels noted, is not to claim your opponent wrong, but to demand that he is mentally incompetent and a danger to society. When a demagogue speaks, he uses contrived authority to back claims of moral, mental, and physical perversion in the target of his demagoguery. The greatest effect can be gained through an appearance of authority. A man claiming that a Jew (conservative) is subhuman may excite (Nazi) party members, but will do little to sway the public. A university professor holding a study concocted by the party, has authority when he declare the Jew (conservative) to be defective and degenerate.

How does your parroting of the Guardian hate piece not match the above, 100%?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Old Rocks said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a very real reason that 'Conservatives' express hatred toward liberals. Liberals tend to be the people that embrace neccessary change. 'Conservatives' cannot stand change, no matter how ridiculous the present situation. A prime example is our present health care system. The most expensive on the planet per capita, does not cover all citizens, and leaves us with third world statistics in longevity and infant mortality.
> 
> Another is global warming. The effects of the warming are evident everywhere. From the cryosphere to the increase in the severity and freqency of extreme weather events. Yet they not only deny that these facts exist, they also claim that 98% of the world's scientists are engaged in a fraud and conspiracy to decieve the rest of us. The neccessary steps to alleviate the future impacts would leave us with cleaner water and air, yet the 'Conservatives' absolutely hate anything that has to do with real solutions.
> 
> There are conservatives that see the problems, and embrace or suggest changes to deal with those problems. And are immediatly labeled Rino's or worse by the 'Conservatives'. Unfortunetly, the conservatives are in the back seat of the GOP vehicle, and the 'Conservatives' are driving. Another wreck is imminent.
Click to expand...


Oh climate change is real, but you can kiss my ass if you think you can prove its being caused by man.


----------



## Lovebears65

I dont hate liberals. In fact I have several liberal friends. We just dont discuss politics because  we both agree  to disagree on our views.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bear513 said:


> Oh climate change is real, but you can kiss my ass if you think you can prove its being caused by man.



The ONLY constant to the climate on Earth for the last 4.5 billion years is change. Predicting that the climate will change is like predicting that the wind will blow.

Frauds like Michael Mann and Algore are no different than mystics and palm readers. They are charlatans who are happy to defraud the the dull witted - like Old Rocks.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Liberals are not really an issue. There hasn't been a real liberal in government since FDR, although the ignorant rebel bastard LBJ produced socially liberal results. What passes for liberal today is in fact a form of fascist punisher for crimes our grandfathers and gr grandfathers committed. 

The problem is the degeneration of the Republican Party into a gaggle of filthy fucking nutball morons. 

A conservative would have died before tripling the national debt in peacetime. Who did that? The one man clownshow, Bobblehead Reagan. That halfwit America describes him as a conservative tells any honest observer with an IQ over 60 that the United States has been floundering for thirty years. 

There are people posting here today too stupid to understand or too morally degenerate to admit that "new economy" prosperity was built on borrowed money. 

That would be pathetic if it wasn't so much fun watching the clownshow US politics have become since Nixon in general and specifically since Bobblehead.


----------



## Truthseeker420

Uncensored2008 said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep spinning !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The heart of demagoguery, as Goebbels noted, is not to claim your opponent wrong, but to demand that he is mentally incompetent and a danger to society. When a demagogue speaks, he uses contrived authority to back claims of moral, mental, and physical perversion in the target of his demagoguery. The greatest effect can be gained through an appearance of authority. A man claiming that a Jew (conservative) is subhuman may excite (Nazi) party members, but will do little to sway the public. A university professor holding a study concocted by the party, has authority when he declare the Jew (conservative) to be defective and degenerate.
> 
> How does your parroting of the Guardian hate piece not match the above, 100%?
Click to expand...


First of all... it is not hate to point out a study or neurosis. Calling  the study demagoguery is lack of understanding and does nothing to dispute the facts of the study or my point. I have much love for my neurotic conservative friends.


----------



## JoeNormal

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve caused the panic of 1929, and then Roosevelt's economic policies extended a sharp but short recession into a depression.  Pretty much the same thing happened in 2008.  Only morons blame low taxes and deregulation for the depression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could provide links to show you how wrong you are but I'm sure you'd never bother to read, listen to or watch them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read dozens of books on the subject and I can show how all your "proof" is pure bullshit.  You can find a good one here:
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001KHLT8O/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title]New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America: Burton W. Folsom Jr.: Amazon.com: Kindle Store[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, we all know you won't read it.   You'll keep your nose buried in those left-wing propaganda sites.
> 
> The natural order of things is for statists to lobby for government to "solve" some problem.  Then, when their "solution" blows up in their faces, the statists blame the free market and demand further government solutions.  The creation of the Federal Reserve is a classic example of that.
Click to expand...


I no more a fan of the Federal Reserve than you are.  (Yes, I saw Zeitgeist.)

I'm talking about the free market deregulation that created Wall Street casino capitalism and ultimately led to the 2008 meltdown.  Here's a radio program that will take no more than an hour to listen to if you're so inclined that takes you through the sequence of events.

The Giant Pool of Money | This American Life


----------



## bripat9643

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could provide links to show you how wrong you are but I'm sure you'd never bother to read, listen to or watch them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read dozens of books on the subject and I can show how all your "proof" is pure bullshit.  You can find a good one here:
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001KHLT8O/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title]New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America: Burton W. Folsom Jr.: Amazon.com: Kindle Store[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, we all know you won't read it.   You'll keep your nose buried in those left-wing propaganda sites.
> 
> The natural order of things is for statists to lobby for government to "solve" some problem.  Then, when their "solution" blows up in their faces, the statists blame the free market and demand further government solutions.  The creation of the Federal Reserve is a classic example of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I no more a fan of the Federal Reserve than you are.  (Yes, I saw Zeitgeist.)
> 
> I'm talking about the free market deregulation that created Wall Street casino capitalism and ultimately led to the 2008 meltdown.  Here's a radio program that will take no more than an hour to listen to if you're so inclined that takes you through the sequence of events.
> 
> The Giant Pool of Money | This American Life
Click to expand...


The sub-prime mortgage debacle caused the recession in 2008, and democrats are almost entirely responsible for that.


----------



## JoeNormal

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read dozens of books on the subject and I can show how all your "proof" is pure bullshit.  You can find a good one here:
> 
> New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America: Burton W. Folsom Jr.: Amazon.com: Kindle Store
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, we all know you won't read it.   You'll keep your nose buried in those left-wing propaganda sites.
> 
> The natural order of things is for statists to lobby for government to "solve" some problem.  Then, when their "solution" blows up in their faces, the statists blame the free market and demand further government solutions.  The creation of the Federal Reserve is a classic example of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I no more a fan of the Federal Reserve than you are.  (Yes, I saw Zeitgeist.)
> 
> I'm talking about the free market deregulation that created Wall Street casino capitalism and ultimately led to the 2008 meltdown.  Here's a radio program that will take no more than an hour to listen to if you're so inclined that takes you through the sequence of events.
> 
> The Giant Pool of Money | This American Life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sub-prime mortgage debacle caused the recession in 2008, and democrats are almost entirely responsible for that.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Listen to the program.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthseeker420 said:


> First of all... it is not hate to point out a study or neurosis.



The faux "study" is demagoguery. It is created to demonize the political opposition. 

Again, it isn't enough for your party to disagree with the opposition, you instead present them as moral and mental degenerates. You rely on "experts" who are loyal to the party to fabricate "studies" to promote your hatred.

It's a well known technique, perfected by Goebbels and practiced heavily by the American democrats.



> Calling  the study demagoguery is lack of understanding and does nothing to dispute the facts of the study or my point. I have much love for my neurotic conservative friends.



There were no "facts," just the pronouncements of a party member that the opposition is mentally deficient. 

Change the word "conservative" in that study with the word "Jew," and it could have easily been written by the Reich.


----------



## numan

Truthseeker420 said:


> I have much love for my neurotic conservative friends.


I don't go in much for love -- compassion, maybe.

I think the difference is that I wish my liberal friends to become better educated, while what I want for my psychotically disturbed neo-conservative acquaintances is that they may get the psychiatric treatment and counseling which they so desperately need.
.


----------



## Truthseeker420

Uncensored2008 said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all... it is not hate to point out a study or neurosis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The faux "study" is demagoguery. It is created to demonize the political opposition.
> 
> Again, it isn't enough for your party to disagree with the opposition, you instead present them as moral and mental degenerates. You rely on "experts" who are loyal to the party to fabricate "studies" to promote your hatred.
> 
> It's a well known technique, perfected by Goebbels and practiced heavily by the American democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling  the study demagoguery is lack of understanding and does nothing to dispute the facts of the study or my point. I have much love for my neurotic conservative friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were no "facts," just the pronouncements of a party member that the opposition is mentally deficient.
> 
> Change the word "conservative" in that study with the word "Jew," and it could have easily been written by the Reich.
Click to expand...


I understand you are dismissing the study and my point by attacking the author but no one has successfully disputed the validity of the study or my point.


----------



## Truthseeker420

numan said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have much love for my neurotic conservative friends.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't go in much for love -- compassion, maybe.
> 
> I think the difference is that I wish my liberal friends to become better educated, while what I want for my psychotically disturbed neo-conservative acquaintances is that they may get the psychiatric treatment and counseling which they so desperately need.
> .
Click to expand...


They are my peeps...politics is a volatile subject in my family.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthseeker420 said:


> I understand you are dismissing the study and my point by attacking the author but no one has successfully disputed the validity of the study or my point.



Oh, I don't dismiss the study, I acknowledge it, and you, for precisely what you are - demagogues.


----------



## Old Rocks

KevinWestern said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a very real reason that 'Conservatives' express hatred toward liberals. Liberals tend to be the people that embrace neccessary change. 'Conservatives' cannot stand change, no matter how ridiculous the present situation. A prime example is our present health care system. The most expensive on the planet per capita, does not cover all citizens, and leaves us with third world statistics in longevity and infant mortality.
> 
> Another is global warming. The effects of the warming are evident everywhere. From the cryosphere to the increase in the severity and freqency of extreme weather events. Yet they not only deny that these facts exist, they also claim that 98% of the world's scientists are engaged in a fraud and conspiracy to decieve the rest of us. The neccessary steps to alleviate the future impacts would leave us with cleaner water and air, yet the 'Conservatives' absolutely hate anything that has to do with real solutions.
> 
> There are conservatives that see the problems, and embrace or suggest changes to deal with those problems. And are immediatly labeled Rino's or worse by the 'Conservatives'. Unfortunetly, the conservatives are in the back seat of the GOP vehicle, and the 'Conservatives' are driving. Another wreck is imminent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a conservative and are very open to change. In fact, I'd like to reduce the amount of Federal Laws (ie when it comes to drugs, regulations, ect) so that society and the individual can more fluidly decide what he/she wants to do without a large overbearing gov't deciding for us.
> 
> I'm a conservative and are still very open to the global warming debate (as you know).
> 
> I'm a conservative and oppose Obamacare not because I want people to be uninsured or want the cost of medicine to be high, but because I think the system was designed poorly, was drafted (in large part) by Pharma companies, and is nothing close to "Universal Healthcare". A few of my college pals are doctors and they have expressed to me a lot of concern over the Obamacare roll out.
> 
> Are those reasonable points?
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

 

All reasonable points. And as I have pointed out, I enjoy the back and forth with conservatives. People that have a differant view than I do teach me much. However, people that come to debate from ignorance, earn my disgust.

Note that I did not defend, or even mention Obamacare in my concerns about our present health care system. I simply stated that what we have is not acceptable to anyone that looks at the situation here and compares it to what other nations have done.

I differentiate 'Conservetives' and conservatives. Kind of like the differance between William Buckley and Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## SAYIT

WethePeopleUS said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Are you sure about that? Because I am about to provide evidence on how the GOP is trying to make abortions illegal. Not that they are trying to stop federal funding for them.. no no no, that is not what they are trying to do. They are trying to make it illegal (not possible) for a woman to have one. Here are some facts/links for your enlightenment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that what is printed on the hate sites has no resemblance to fact, doncha?
> 
> You posting shit from MoveOn about Abortion opponents is about like posting shit from the KKK about blacks.
> 
> You have zero credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhh hate sites you say. For that statement, you have lost any credibility.
> 
> What an idiot. And what do you have to say about the other sites I cited? What about the rest of my post. YOU MUST be a republican, by taking a fragment of my argument and trying to make a mockery of it. Good job buddy!! Get on your soap box and tell the world how women should bow to men, and be our slaves!!
Click to expand...


I don't believe the abortion issue is about who controls women's lives. 
It's about dead babies, remember?


----------



## American_Jihad

SAYIT said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that what is printed on the hate sites has no resemblance to fact, doncha?
> 
> You posting shit from MoveOn about Abortion opponents is about like posting shit from the KKK about blacks.
> 
> You have zero credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhh hate sites you say. For that statement, you have lost any credibility.
> 
> What an idiot. And what do you have to say about the other sites I cited? What about the rest of my post. YOU MUST be a republican, by taking a fragment of my argument and trying to make a mockery of it. Good job buddy!! Get on your soap box and tell the world how women should bow to men, and be our slaves!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe the abortion issue is about who controls women's lives.
> It's about dead babies, remember?
Click to expand...


SAYIT my friend I want to thank you for this thread, everytime I try they put it in the The Taunting Arena, so forgive me for the piggyback of yo thread...


----------



## WillowTree

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



You have got to be fucking kidding us right?


----------



## logical4u

Don't hate liberals, just don't see their plans "working".

I thought Margret Thatcher had some good points.

The problem with liberalism is that sooner or later, they run out of other people's money.

If the wealthy have this great amount of money and the poor have a certain percentage of that, why would you want to reduce the amount the poor people have, just to punish the wealthy?


----------



## numan

SAYIT said:


> I don't believe the abortion issue is about who controls women's lives.
> It's about dead babies, remember?


It's about barely formed embryos which are little different from fish, lizard or rat embryos.

Learn a little biology, you superstitious ignoramus!!
.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Uncensored2008 said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhh hate sites you say. For that statement, you have lost any credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, *I* lose credibility; yet YOU are the one posting shit from the hate sites?
> 
> ROFL
> 
> What a buffoon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What an idiot. And what do you have to say about the other sites I cited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cited a gaggle of leftist hate sites. MoveOn, ThinkProgress, Communist Dreams. et al.
> 
> You are a mindless hack, posting party demagoguery against the hated opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the rest of my post. YOU MUST be a republican, by taking a fragment of my argument and trying to make a mockery of it. Good job buddy!! Get on your soap box and tell the world how women should bow to men, and be our slaves!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no brain, you are a drone, programmed by the hate sites to spew shit against the opponents your rulers identify.
> 
> I doubt you've ever had an independent thought in your life.
Click to expand...


How about this. Why don't you take my post, research what I cited, and then prove my statements wrong. Unless you do so, then you are a simpleton, who is blinded by stupidity. Until you prove absolutely that what I said what "spewing hate" you willbe regarded as  a useless troll


----------



## SAYIT

numan said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe the abortion issue is about who controls women's lives.
> It's about dead babies, remember?
> 
> 
> 
> It's about barely formed embryos which are little different from fish, lizard or rat embryos.
> 
> Learn a little biology, you superstitious ignoramus!!
> .
Click to expand...


Having a different POV than you on the humanity of human "embryos" makes one an uneducated, superstitious ignoramus? 
Those fish, lizard and rat embryos will never grow up to be human and IMHO you share that fate with the fish, lizards and rats.


----------



## francoHFW

#961- It's funny how there were no problems until Bush and his cronies got oversight of the asset market...lol, brainwashed DUMBAZZES.

Same with OP.


----------



## buckeye45_73

numan said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe the abortion issue is about who controls women's lives.
> It's about dead babies, remember?
> 
> 
> 
> It's about barely formed embryos which are little different from fish, lizard or rat embryos.
> 
> Learn a little biology, you superstitious ignoramus!!
> .
Click to expand...

 well just kill the embyos of endangered species...it wont effect them in the slightest....right?


----------



## francoHFW

You mean, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"&#8212; alrighty then.


----------



## buckeye45_73

francoHFW said:


> You mean, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" alrighty then.


 

pub crap


----------



## francoHFW

Nah, that's liberal shit...nite! google, so you learn something.


----------



## Annie

editec said:


> Why do people hate Liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because nitwits need scapegoats?
Click to expand...


While late in the game here, just saw this thread, this post puts a bit of truth to the lies of the OP. There are reasons that the right are now hitting back at the left, this is just a lame example of why.


----------



## Annie

numan said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe the abortion issue is about who controls women's lives.
> It's about dead babies, remember?
> 
> 
> 
> It's about barely formed embryos which are little different from fish, lizard or rat embryos.
> 
> Learn a little biology, you superstitious ignoramus!!
> .
Click to expand...


Except when they are breathing and crying. Then a 'solution' or snipping of neck or letting them die for exposure will take care of that.


----------



## Wicked Jester

Saigon said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to get into detail because then I would be accused of being hateful toward cons. But while liberals view the world with shades of gray, conservatives view the world as black vs white,us vs them,good vs evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The weird thing is - there seems to be some truth in that.
> 
> I just don't see a lot of more left wing posters going on about "typical conservative mindset" or claiming "conservatives are so stupid".
> 
> I'm glad we don't see that, but still...
Click to expand...

LMAO!

Then you obviously go through life with blinders on.....Basically, a typical liberal, nothing more.

Personally, I don't hate liberals, I laugh at them....They provide too damn much entertainment when cackling on about their loony world view, to ever hate the lil' goofballs.


----------



## Wicked Jester

francoHFW said:


> #961- It's funny how there were no problems until Bush and his cronies got oversight of the asset market...lol, brainwashed DUMBAZZES.
> 
> Same with OP.


^^^This, is too damn funny!

Typical liberal, not bright enough to figure out how to use the quote function, while calling others "DUMBAZZES."

And liberals actually have the audacity to question why they are laughed at so often.


----------



## buckeye45_73

Wicked Jester said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to get into detail because then I would be accused of being hateful toward cons. *But while liberals view the world with shades of gray, conservatives view the world as black vs white,us vs them,good vs evil*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The weird thing is - there seems to be some truth in that.
> 
> I just don't see a lot of more left wing posters going on about "typical conservative mindset" or claiming "conservatives are so stupid".
> 
> I'm glad we don't see that, but still...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Then you obviously go through life with blinders on.....Basically, a typical liberal, nothing more.
> 
> Personally, I don't hate liberals, I laugh at them....They provide too damn much entertainment when cackling on about their loony world view, to ever hate the lil' goofballs.
Click to expand...

 

that's another lie...everyone knows liberals are crusaders......liberals want to stamp out all evil....ALL of it....which explains why the nword is now seen as the equivalent of church bombing.....conservatives believe in trade off.....Sowell said it best..it's 4 min, watch it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88]The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Truthseeker420

buckeye45_73 said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The weird thing is - there seems to be some truth in that.
> 
> I just don't see a lot of more left wing posters going on about "typical conservative mindset" or claiming "conservatives are so stupid".
> 
> I'm glad we don't see that, but still...
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Then you obviously go through life with blinders on.....Basically, a typical liberal, nothing more.
> 
> Personally, I don't hate liberals, I laugh at them....They provide too damn much entertainment when cackling on about their loony world view, to ever hate the lil' goofballs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that's another lie...everyone knows liberals are crusaders......liberals want to stamp out all evil....ALL of it....which explains why the nword is now seen as the equivalent of church bombing.....conservatives believe in trade off.....Sowell said it best..it's 4 min, watch it.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88]The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Fox loves to parade people who pretend to have converted from evil to good, this video is good evidence of the us vs them paradigm.


----------



## poet

buckeye45_73 said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The weird thing is - there seems to be some truth in that.
> 
> I just don't see a lot of more left wing posters going on about "typical conservative mindset" or claiming "conservatives are so stupid".
> 
> I'm glad we don't see that, but still...
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Then you obviously go through life with blinders on.....Basically, a typical liberal, nothing more.
> 
> Personally, I don't hate liberals, I laugh at them....They provide too damn much entertainment when cackling on about their loony world view, to ever hate the lil' goofballs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that's another lie...everyone knows liberals are crusaders......liberals want to stamp out all evil....ALL of it....which explains why the nword is now seen as the equivalent of church bombing.....conservatives believe in trade off.....Sowell said it best..it's 4 min, watch it.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88]The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Right. Another of your n-word "friends", no doubt....wonder how Sowell would react to you calling him the n-word, for "fun". LOL


----------



## poet




----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Saigon said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to get into detail because then I would be accused of being hateful toward cons. But while liberals view the world with shades of gray, conservatives view the world as black vs white,us vs them,good vs evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The weird thing is - there seems to be some truth in that.
> 
> I just don't see a lot of more left wing posters going on about "typical conservative mindset" or claiming "conservatives are so stupid".
> 
> I'm glad we don't see that, but still...
Click to expand...


You must be fucking blind.


----------



## SAYIT

Truthseeker420 said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Then you obviously go through life with blinders on.....Basically, a typical liberal, nothing more.
> 
> Personally, I don't hate liberals, I laugh at them....They provide too damn much entertainment when cackling on about their loony world view, to ever hate the lil' goofballs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's another lie...everyone knows liberals are crusaders......liberals want to stamp out all evil....ALL of it....which explains why the nword is now seen as the equivalent of church bombing.....conservatives believe in trade off.....Sowell said it best..it's 4 min, watch it.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88]The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox loves to parade people who pretend to have converted from evil to good, this video is good evidence of the us vs them paradigm.
Click to expand...


  
Our media covers the relevant political spectrum, each through a different prism.
Fox, the BDOTB (Big Dog On The Block), does not toe the lib line. What better way to get their point across than the mea culpa of a reformed Marxist? 
A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.


----------



## Ernie S.

This post is hidden because [MENTION=30343]poet[/MENTION] is on your ignore list.


----------



## SAYIT

poet said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Then you obviously go through life with blinders on.....Basically, a typical liberal, nothing more.
> 
> Personally, I don't hate liberals, I laugh at them....They provide too damn much entertainment when cackling on about their loony world view, to ever hate the lil' goofballs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's another lie...everyone knows liberals are crusaders......liberals want to stamp out all evil....ALL of it....which explains why the nword is now seen as the equivalent of church bombing.....conservatives believe in trade off.....Sowell said it best..it's 4 min, watch it.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88]The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. Another of your n-word "friends", no doubt....wonder how Sowell would react to you calling him the n-word, for "fun". LOL
Click to expand...


Many here would react negatively to anyone referring to anyone by any racial epithet.
That said, your post is a lame deflection.
Sowell is a legit American intellectual who has abandoned the Marxism of his youthful indiscretion for a more realistic view of life and the world. Stop playing the vic and deal with it. You may be smart but you're not nearly as smart as you like to believe.
BTW, is your "IGNORE" list just a prop or do you really have all those peeps on "IGNORE?"


----------



## Redfish

20% of americans identify themselves as liberals,  40% as conservatives,  and 40% don't give a shit.


liberals get attention because the dominate the media and the entertainment industry.   

they are hated because the philosophy they push is destroying this country.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Actually Liberals are not really hated except by partisan hacks on the right who would rather bash Liberals than have a decent discussion about the issues.

I've always found, when you have to resort to name calling, hate, and lies, you've got no argument whatsoever.

There are good people here on both sides and terrible people here on both sides.

But no one is hate worthy. That's a pretty strong word. If someone wants to hate me, I don't give a shit. 

But I don't hate people for having a different opinion. I can dislike them if they act like an ass and then not engage them anymore but I don't hate.

Hating makes you hateful and angry. Life's too short.

OK-my preaching is over for this Sunday, LOL.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

WethePeopleUS said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhh hate sites you say. For that statement, you have lost any credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, *I* lose credibility; yet YOU are the one posting shit from the hate sites?
> 
> ROFL
> 
> What a buffoon.
> 
> 
> 
> You cited a gaggle of leftist hate sites. MoveOn, ThinkProgress, Communist Dreams. et al.
> 
> You are a mindless hack, posting party demagoguery against the hated opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the rest of my post. YOU MUST be a republican, by taking a fragment of my argument and trying to make a mockery of it. Good job buddy!! Get on your soap box and tell the world how women should bow to men, and be our slaves!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no brain, you are a drone, programmed by the hate sites to spew shit against the opponents your rulers identify.
> 
> I doubt you've ever had an independent thought in your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about this. Why don't you take my post, research what I cited, and then prove my statements wrong. Unless you do so, then you are a simpleton, who is blinded by stupidity. Until you prove absolutely that what I said what "spewing hate" you willbe regarded as  a useless troll
Click to expand...


So 3 days later, and still no rebuttal on how I was wrong  ... so either you can't find it, or you are still trying LOL.... either way, YOU GOT OWNED!!!


----------



## Wicked Jester

buckeye45_73 said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The weird thing is - there seems to be some truth in that.
> 
> I just don't see a lot of more left wing posters going on about "typical conservative mindset" or claiming "conservatives are so stupid".
> 
> I'm glad we don't see that, but still...
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Then you obviously go through life with blinders on.....Basically, a typical liberal, nothing more.
> 
> Personally, I don't hate liberals, I laugh at them....They provide too damn much entertainment when cackling on about their loony world view, to ever hate the lil' goofballs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that's another lie...everyone knows liberals are crusaders......liberals want to stamp out all evil....ALL of it....which explains why the nword is now seen as the equivalent of church bombing.....conservatives believe in trade off.....Sowell said it best..it's 4 min, watch it.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88]The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

Sowell, Elder, Carson, and several other highly educated blacks who are willing to speak out openly on how the liberal agenda is only aiding in keeping their black brethren oppressed, at the risk of being called every disgusting name in the book by these liberal idiots, are the liberals worst nightmares....For an educated black to speak out, in an attempt to show their fellow blacks that the liberal agenda is their own worst enemy, is something these loons should definitely fear....An educated black in the liberal mind, is an enemy, nothing more....And that is why they so vociferously attack ANY black that dares to speak out, because those blacks are a direct threat to wipe out a prized voting bloc, that liberals seek to keep oppressed, for no other reason than to use them, election after election.

Bottom line, ANY liberal who claims to be in it for the minorities, are lying through their friggin' teeth.


----------



## poet

SAYIT said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's another lie...everyone knows liberals are crusaders......liberals want to stamp out all evil....ALL of it....which explains why the nword is now seen as the equivalent of church bombing.....conservatives believe in trade off.....Sowell said it best..it's 4 min, watch it.
> 
> The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Another of your n-word "friends", no doubt....wonder how Sowell would react to you calling him the n-word, for "fun". LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many here would react negatively to anyone referring to anyone by any racial epithet.
> That said, your post is a lame deflection.
> Sowell is a legit American intellectual who has abandoned the Marxism of his youthful indiscretion for a more realistic view of life and the world. Stop playing the vic and deal with it. You may be smart but you're not nearly as smart as you like to believe.
> BTW, is your "IGNORE" list just a prop or do you really have all those peeps on "IGNORE?"
Click to expand...


lol


----------



## JWBooth

Today, 01:53 PM
poet
This message is hidden because *poet* is on your ignore list.


----------



## Wicked Jester

Borillar said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point. One groups wants one thing, and won't budge on the issue, and the opposite group does the same. Get a clue, *government is about compromise. Government is about bettering your society, for the whole, not a few elitists. * But we have seemed to lose that notion. However, as long as we have the babies in Congress, that are so blinded by party hatred, we will continue to go down the toilet.
> 
> One example:
> Obama and the dems tried to get legislation passed that would offer huge tax incentives for large corporations to bring their factories back home to America, to boost OUR economy, and the repubs shot it down.... hhhmmmm and the repubs want us to believe they have "us" in their best interest?
> 
> 
> 
> How do you come to the conclusion that governing is about compromise?
> 
> Do we compromise on the notion that people who murder other people should not be jailed?
> 
> Do we compromise on the notion that if we are attacked by another country, the perhaps we shouldn't fight back?
> 
> The fact is that for any country to survive, clear choices and hard decisions must be made.  To compromise on those decisions is the path to ruin..
> 
> Witness the GOP.  They have adopted a policy of compromise for the past 20 years.  It has weakened us as a nation, it has brought our economy to the very brink of ruin, and our societal rot has increased almost exponentially.
> 
> Compromise?  No thanks.  You can have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't seen the Republicans compromise on much of anything in the past 20 years. When a Democrat is President, the Republicans have clearly been against any sort of compromise or accommodation. They will even be against the very things they were for if a Democrat takes it up. "Compromise? No thanks. You can have it." I guess you must be ecstatic with the Republican party of the past decade or so.
Click to expand...

Well then, I guess you didn't witness the Clinton years, where there was much compromise going on....Ya' see, unlike the inept fool we now have occupying the Oval Office, at least William Jethro had the ability to lead, and reach across the aisle without back stabbing the other side when compromise was reached, as Obama has done.....But then, Obama is nothing more than a divider, with zero ability to lead, there is no way to deny it now, and that will be his ultimate legacy as the history books are written.


----------



## buckeye45_73

Wicked Jester said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Then you obviously go through life with blinders on.....Basically, a typical liberal, nothing more.
> 
> Personally, I don't hate liberals, I laugh at them....They provide too damn much entertainment when cackling on about their loony world view, to ever hate the lil' goofballs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's another lie...everyone knows liberals are crusaders......liberals want to stamp out all evil....ALL of it....which explains why the nword is now seen as the equivalent of church bombing.....conservatives believe in trade off.....Sowell said it best..it's 4 min, watch it.
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88"]The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sowell, Elder, Carson, and several other highly educated blacks who are willing to speak out openly on how the liberal agenda is only aiding in keeping their black brethren oppressed, at the risk of being called every disgusting name in the book by these liberal idiots, are the liberals worst nightmares....For an educated black to speak out, in an attempt to show their fellow blacks that the liberal agenda is their own worst enemy, is something these loons should definitely fear....An educated black in the liberal mind, is an enemy, nothing more....And that is why they so vociferously attack ANY black that dares to speak out, because those blacks are a direct threat to wipe out a prized voting bloc, that liberals seek to keep oppressed, for no other reason than to use them, election after election.
> 
> Bottom line, ANY liberal who claims to be in it for the minorities, are lying through their friggin' teeth.
Click to expand...

 
no kidding, Poet, a question for  you, I think they here that word from several people, mostly democrats, usually starting with house in front of it. If you want to see racism, work for a black republican, you'll see just how racist democrats can be, and yeah it's really really bad.


----------



## MondoBongo

Wicked Jester said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you come to the conclusion that governing is about compromise?
> 
> Do we compromise on the notion that people who murder other people should not be jailed?
> 
> Do we compromise on the notion that if we are attacked by another country, the perhaps we shouldn't fight back?
> 
> The fact is that for any country to survive, clear choices and hard decisions must be made.  To compromise on those decisions is the path to ruin..
> 
> Witness the GOP.  They have adopted a policy of compromise for the past 20 years.  It has weakened us as a nation, it has brought our economy to the very brink of ruin, and our societal rot has increased almost exponentially.
> 
> Compromise?  No thanks.  You can have it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't seen the Republicans compromise on much of anything in the past 20 years. When a Democrat is President, the Republicans have clearly been against any sort of compromise or accommodation. They will even be against the very things they were for if a Democrat takes it up. "Compromise? No thanks. You can have it." I guess you must be ecstatic with the Republican party of the past decade or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Well then, I guess you didn't witness the Clinton years, where there was much compromise going on....*Ya' see, unlike the inept fool we now have occupying the Oval Office, at least William Jethro had the ability to lead, and reach across the aisle without back stabbing the other side when compromise was reached, as Obama has done.....But then, Obama is nothing more than a divider, with zero ability to lead, there is no way to deny it now, and that will be his ultimate legacy as the history books are written.
Click to expand...


Which Clinton years are you talking about?  I'm really impressed by the rose colored glasses through which many on the right now view the Clinton years.  To me, it was one witch hunt after another by those on the right.  Richard Mellon Scaiffe funded organizations specifically designed to bring down the Clinton Presidency.  When Clinton responded to the attack on the USS Cole, he was roundly accused of "wagging the dog" by those on the right who felt he used the incident to detract from the Lewinsky scandal.

When he sent troops into Bosnia, it most certainly was not with the support of Republicans.  When he fired on a known al-qaida training camp in an effort to get bin Laden, it was definitely NOT with the support of Republicans.

Did he bend over backward to accommodate conservatives regarding NAFTA?  welfare reform?  DOMA?  and DADT?  You betcha.  But that's not compromise.  That's capitulating. Big difference.

Face it.  Those on your side hated Clinton and everything he did and everything he stood for every bit as much as you all hate Obama now.


----------



## Truthseeker420

SAYIT said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's another lie...everyone knows liberals are crusaders......liberals want to stamp out all evil....ALL of it....which explains why the nword is now seen as the equivalent of church bombing.....conservatives believe in trade off.....Sowell said it best..it's 4 min, watch it.
> 
> The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox loves to parade people who pretend to have converted from evil to good, this video is good evidence of the us vs them paradigm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our media covers the relevant political spectrum, each through a different prism.
> Fox, the BDOTB (Big Dog On The Block), does not toe the lib line. What better way to get their point across than the mea culpa of a reformed Marxist?
> A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.
Click to expand...


Sowell has never been a liberal or mugged by reality/ truth.


----------



## thereisnospoon

numan said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe the abortion issue is about who controls women's lives.
> It's about dead babies, remember?
> 
> 
> 
> It's about barely formed embryos which are little different from fish, lizard or rat embryos.
> 
> Learn a little biology, you superstitious ignoramus!!
> .
Click to expand...

Right....That and 50 cents will get you a senior coffee at Burger King..
Little more than a fish..
Ya know what....Save yourself further ridicule by forgetting how to post on this message board.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Truthseeker420 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox loves to parade people who pretend to have converted from evil to good, this video is good evidence of the us vs them paradigm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our media covers the relevant political spectrum, each through a different prism.
> Fox, the BDOTB (Big Dog On The Block), does not toe the lib line. What better way to get their point across than the mea culpa of a reformed Marxist?
> A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sowell has never been a liberal or mugged by reality/ truth.
Click to expand...


Sowell is brilliant. And makes liberals want to spit chewed nails.


----------



## Foxfyre

Wicked Jester said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Then you obviously go through life with blinders on.....Basically, a typical liberal, nothing more.
> 
> Personally, I don't hate liberals, I laugh at them....They provide too damn much entertainment when cackling on about their loony world view, to ever hate the lil' goofballs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's another lie...everyone knows liberals are crusaders......liberals want to stamp out all evil....ALL of it....which explains why the nword is now seen as the equivalent of church bombing.....conservatives believe in trade off.....Sowell said it best..it's 4 min, watch it.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88]The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sowell, Elder, Carson, and several other highly educated blacks who are willing to speak out openly on how the liberal agenda is only aiding in keeping their black brethren oppressed, at the risk of being called every disgusting name in the book by these liberal idiots, are the liberals worst nightmares....For an educated black to speak out, in an attempt to show their fellow blacks that the liberal agenda is their own worst enemy, is something these loons should definitely fear....An educated black in the liberal mind, is an enemy, nothing more....And that is why they so vociferously attack ANY black that dares to speak out, because those blacks are a direct threat to wipe out a prized voting bloc, that liberals seek to keep oppressed, for no other reason than to use them, election after election.
> 
> Bottom line, ANY liberal who claims to be in it for the minorities, are lying through their friggin' teeth.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure they are lying.  Being wrong or incorrect is not necessarily to lie even though your wrong conclusion produces one.  There is a difference though between basing ones sociopolitical philosophy on what 'feels' good or 'looks righteous' or 'has good intentions' and in basing one sociopolitical philosophy on what actually results in the greater good.

It was reading the profound words of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, and other great black conservatives who allowed me to correct my formerly wrong view of racism, class inequities, etc. and moved me ever closer to being a pure classical liberal, i.e. modern American conservative.

I had already been immersed in the writings of the radical left, debated the pros and cons of Marxism and socialism, explored and evaluated the European forms of government with that outlined by our Constitution.  Immersing myself in the documents left to us by our Founders and other great minds of the conservative world from the 18th century forward including Burke, de Tocqueville, Hayek, Adam Smith, Cooper, Brownson, SF Stephen, Mill, and others, along with personal experience, brought me all the way to my current convictions.

The opening posts suggested that conservatives see things in black and white while liberals see things in shades of gray.  You cannot say that if you read the thoughts of those great conservative minds who saw all the dangers and pitfalls in ideology, no matter what ideology it was, but also could see the concepts that create the greater good.

I hope all will listen to that clip of the Thomas Sowell interview.  It goes to the heart of why conservatism, as the Founders practiced it, is the only hope humankind has for liberty, self determination, and freedom from oppressive tyranny.


----------



## Wicked Jester

MondoBongo said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't seen the Republicans compromise on much of anything in the past 20 years. When a Democrat is President, the Republicans have clearly been against any sort of compromise or accommodation. They will even be against the very things they were for if a Democrat takes it up. "Compromise? No thanks. You can have it." I guess you must be ecstatic with the Republican party of the past decade or so.
> 
> 
> 
> *Well then, I guess you didn't witness the Clinton years, where there was much compromise going on....*Ya' see, unlike the inept fool we now have occupying the Oval Office, at least William Jethro had the ability to lead, and reach across the aisle without back stabbing the other side when compromise was reached, as Obama has done.....But then, Obama is nothing more than a divider, with zero ability to lead, there is no way to deny it now, and that will be his ultimate legacy as the history books are written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which Clinton years are you talking about?  I'm really impressed by the rose colored glasses through which many on the right now view the Clinton years.  To me, it was one witch hunt after another by those on the right.  Richard Mellon Scaiffe funded organizations specifically designed to bring down the Clinton Presidency.  When Clinton responded to the attack on the USS Cole, he was roundly accused of "wagging the dog" by those on the right who felt he used the incident to detract from the Lewinsky scandal.
> 
> When he sent troops into Bosnia, it most certainly was not with the support of Republicans.  When he fired on a known al-qaida training camp in an effort to get bin Laden, it was definitely NOT with the support of Republicans.
> 
> Did he bend over backward to accommodate conservatives regarding NAFTA?  welfare reform?  DOMA?  and DADT?  You betcha.  But that's not compromise.  That's capitulating. Big difference.
> 
> Face it.  Those on your side hated Clinton and everything he did and everything he stood for every bit as much as you all hate Obama now.
Click to expand...

LMAO!

You actually think there isn't going to be push back from an opposing side during ANY presidency?.....Damn right there is, and should be.

Attacking a known terrorist camp..Ya' mean the one that was KNOWN to be empty, and bin-Laden was known to be nowhere near?.....Yeah, he deserved to be hammered over that fiasco. Just as he deserves to be hammered for wasting other opportunities to take bin-Laden out when he had the clear opportunity....At least he's willing to admit it's his biggest regret, as it should be, when you directly have the blood of thousands of americans murdered on 9/11 staining your hands due to your abject failures.

And, it's also quite funny how you libs cannot bring yourselves to say the word compromise, and can only claim "capitulation," when one of your brethren actually does "compromise" on an issue with the other side.....And that is exactly why one should NEVER take a liberal seriously....Dealing in honesty is not a liberals forte.


----------



## Foxfyre

It isn't a matter of hating liberals that we should be discussing.  But why liberalism is rejected by some.

I would take any controversial topic be it abortion or minimum wage or gun control or passing out condoms to high schooler--choose any such topic--and I would challenge a liberal and a conservative to write a 100-word rationale for their point of view on that topic.

The rules would be:
1.  No anecdotal evidence of any kind
2.  No references to any person, group, or demographic.
3.  No reference to anybody's moral, religious, or ethical convictions.
4.  No reference to anybody's feelings.
5.  No copy and paste of anybody's statistics or studies or opinion.

I am guessing that most conservatives could come up with a reasoned argument for their point of view.

I am guessing that most liberals could not.

I can't test my theory for I have yet to find a liberal willing to take me up on on the challenge.


----------



## Truthseeker420

thereisnospoon said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our media covers the relevant political spectrum, each through a different prism.
> Fox, the BDOTB (Big Dog On The Block), does not toe the lib line. What better way to get their point across than the mea culpa of a reformed Marxist?
> A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sowell has never been a liberal or mugged by reality/ truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sowell is brilliant. And makes liberals want to spit chewed nails.
Click to expand...


He is certainly smart enough to know he can make money being the village idiot(useful idiot) specializing in assuage of rich white guilt.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlss_LiNeJk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlss_LiNeJk[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJuwLsoo4hs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJuwLsoo4hs[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre

Truthseeker420 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sowell has never been a liberal or mugged by reality/ truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sowell is brilliant. And makes liberals want to spit chewed nails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is certainly smart enough to know he can make money being the village idiot(useful idiot) specializing in assuage of rich white guilt.
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlss_LiNeJk]Monty Python - Village Idiots - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJuwLsoo4hs]Everything Thomas Sowell Thinks is Wrong - Education - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


So why do you and those like you hate Thomas Sowell?  Even to the point that you would listen to a village idiot say what he says instead of listening to what Thomas Sowell says?


----------



## thereisnospoon

Foxfyre said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's another lie...everyone knows liberals are crusaders......liberals want to stamp out all evil....ALL of it....which explains why the nword is now seen as the equivalent of church bombing.....conservatives believe in trade off.....Sowell said it best..it's 4 min, watch it.
> 
> The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> Sowell, Elder, Carson, and several other highly educated blacks who are willing to speak out openly on how the liberal agenda is only aiding in keeping their black brethren oppressed, at the risk of being called every disgusting name in the book by these liberal idiots, are the liberals worst nightmares....For an educated black to speak out, in an attempt to show their fellow blacks that the liberal agenda is their own worst enemy, is something these loons should definitely fear....An educated black in the liberal mind, is an enemy, nothing more....And that is why they so vociferously attack ANY black that dares to speak out, because those blacks are a direct threat to wipe out a prized voting bloc, that liberals seek to keep oppressed, for no other reason than to use them, election after election.
> 
> Bottom line, ANY liberal who claims to be in it for the minorities, are lying through their friggin' teeth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure they are lying.  Being wrong or incorrect is not necessarily to lie even though your wrong conclusion produces one.  There is a difference though between basing ones sociopolitical philosophy on what 'feels' good or 'looks righteous' or 'has good intentions' and in basing one sociopolitical philosophy on what actually results in the greater good.
> 
> It was reading the profound words of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, and other great black conservatives who allowed me to correct my formerly wrong view of racism, class inequities, etc. and moved me ever closer to being a pure classical liberal, i.e. modern American conservative.
> 
> I had already been immersed in the writings of the radical left, debated the pros and cons of Marxism and socialism, explored and evaluated the European forms of government with that outlined by our Constitution.  Immersing myself in the documents left to us by our Founders and other great minds of the conservative world from the 18th century forward including Burke, de Tocqueville, Hayek, Adam Smith, Cooper, Brownson, SF Stephen, Mill, and others, along with personal experience, brought me all the way to my current convictions.
> 
> The opening posts suggested that conservatives see things in black and white while liberals see things in shades of gray.  You cannot say that if you read the thoughts of those great conservative minds who saw all the dangers and pitfalls in ideology, no matter what ideology it was, but also could see the concepts that create the greater good.
> 
> I hope all will listen to that clip of the Thomas Sowell interview.  It goes to the heart of why conservatism, as the Founders practiced it, is the only hope humankind has for liberty, self determination, and freedom from oppressive tyranny.
Click to expand...

According to the lib playbook, a mis-statement, error or disagreement with the lib agenda is labeled as a "lie"...This is just another method of silencing conservative thought/speech.


----------



## Truthseeker420

Foxfyre said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sowell is brilliant. And makes liberals want to spit chewed nails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is certainly smart enough to know he can make money being the village idiot(useful idiot) specializing in assuage of rich white guilt.
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlss_LiNeJk]Monty Python - Village Idiots - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJuwLsoo4hs]Everything Thomas Sowell Thinks is Wrong - Education - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why do you and those like you hate Thomas Sowell?  Even to the point that you would listen to a village idiot say what he says instead of listening to what Thomas Sowell says?
Click to expand...


First of all I do not hate Sowell, I don't know him....but the video has Sowell speaking on education.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Truthseeker420 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sowell has never been a liberal or mugged by reality/ truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sowell is brilliant. And makes liberals want to spit chewed nails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is certainly smart enough to know he can make money being the village idiot(useful idiot) specializing in assuage of rich white guilt.
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlss_LiNeJk]Monty Python - Village Idiots - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJuwLsoo4hs]Everything Thomas Sowell Thinks is Wrong - Education - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

HA...It is the notion of 'rich white guilt which has made blue states out of the entire northeast, upper midwest and California. Ironically where most of the nation's wealth is located. And in the hands of the very people your side accuses of being conservative. 
What a bunch of hypocritical bullshit.


----------



## Truthseeker420

syrenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you jest.
> 
> Liberals are just as black and white, right and wrong on issues as cons are. Dont kid yourself into thinking that liberals are any more or less flexible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am judging from what I have seen in nearly 70 years of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> then you dont get out much.
Click to expand...


You don't have to go far in this video before Scarborough calls the government the "enemy of the good".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei0r6MBeV7Q]Joe Scarborough Paul Krugman FULL Deficit Debate - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre

Truthseeker420 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is certainly smart enough to know he can make money being the village idiot(useful idiot) specializing in assuage of rich white guilt.
> 
> 
> Monty Python - Village Idiots - YouTube
> 
> Everything Thomas Sowell Thinks is Wrong - Education - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you and those like you hate Thomas Sowell?  Even to the point that you would listen to a village idiot say what he says instead of listening to what Thomas Sowell says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all I do not hate Sowell, I don't know him....but the video has Sowell speaking on education.
Click to expand...


Yes, but smart people don't go to a heavily edited attack video to get quotations to accuse people.  Smart people go to the source itself and see what the person said in context.  Sowell has done exhaustive research, commentary, and lecturing on education.  He may be more knowledgeable on the subject than anybody living these days and he documents his facts and figures very very well.

I have read much, if not most, that he has offered on the subject and he documents his facts and figures very very well.

Have you?   Are you smart?


----------



## Londoner

Foxfyre said:


> I am guessing that most conservatives could come up with a reasoned argument for their point of view.
> 
> I am guessing that most liberals could not.
> 
> I can't test my theory for I have yet to find a liberal willing to take me up on on the challenge.



Provides no actual argument, and wraps it up with the mother of all anecdotes. 

This is one of the most ironic things I have ever read.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



*All they know is what Sean, Glenn and now Alex Jones tell them.  

Oh yeah, let's not forget that they have put Ann Coulter on the best sellers list for years now.  *


----------



## buckeye45_73

thereisnospoon said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sowell is brilliant. And makes liberals want to spit chewed nails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is certainly smart enough to know he can make money being the village idiot(useful idiot) specializing in assuage of rich white guilt.
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlss_LiNeJk]Monty Python - Village Idiots - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJuwLsoo4hs]Everything Thomas Sowell Thinks is Wrong - Education - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HA...It is the notion of 'rich white guilt which has made blue states out of the entire northeast, upper midwest and California. Ironically where most of the nation's wealth is located. And in the hands of the very people your side accuses of being conservative.
> What a bunch of hypocritical bullshit.
Click to expand...


No kidding the full term is LIBERAL white guilt....liberals arent even honest on that point....


----------



## Foxfyre

Londoner said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am guessing that most conservatives could come up with a reasoned argument for their point of view.
> 
> I am guessing that most liberals could not.
> 
> I can't test my theory for I have yet to find a liberal willing to take me up on on the challenge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provides no actual argument, and wraps it up with the mother of all anecdotes.
> 
> This is one of the most ironic things I have ever read.
Click to expand...


Really?  I give my guess for the way things will go, and you criticize me for not providing an argument for my own experience?  And you quote my thoughts out of context to do it?  You have a very strange view of irony my friend.  But you certainly do illustrate the way liberals think.   

However, to give me a basis for my guess and take away my argument that a liberal likely can't articulate a rationale for a point of view under the five rules I outlined, would you be interested in accepting the challenge?


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Foxfyre said:


> It isn't a matter of hating liberals that we should be discussing.  But why liberalism is rejected by some.
> 
> I would take any controversial topic be it abortion or minimum wage or gun control or passing out condoms to high schooler--choose any such topic--and I would challenge a liberal and a conservative to write a 100-word rationale for their point of view on that topic.
> 
> The rules would be:
> 1.  No anecdotal evidence of any kind
> 2.  No references to any person, group, or demographic.
> 3.  No reference to anybody's moral, religious, or ethical convictions.
> 4.  No reference to anybody's feelings.
> 5.  No copy and paste of anybody's statistics or studies or opinion.
> 
> I am guessing that most conservatives could come up with a reasoned argument for their point of view.
> 
> I am guessing that most liberals could not.
> 
> I can't test my theory for I have yet to find a liberal willing to take me up on on the challenge.



*Ha!  Why don't you do it first then?  What a blowhard.*


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Londoner said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am guessing that most conservatives could come up with a reasoned argument for their point of view.
> 
> I am guessing that most liberals could not.
> 
> I can't test my theory for I have yet to find a liberal willing to take me up on on the challenge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provides no actual argument, and wraps it up with the mother of all anecdotes.
> 
> This is one of the most ironic things I have ever read.
Click to expand...

*
I believe Bill O'Reilly calls it "bloviating".*


----------



## Foxfyre

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't a matter of hating liberals that we should be discussing.  But why liberalism is rejected by some.
> 
> I would take any controversial topic be it abortion or minimum wage or gun control or passing out condoms to high schooler--choose any such topic--and I would challenge a liberal and a conservative to write a 100-word rationale for their point of view on that topic.
> 
> The rules would be:
> 1.  No anecdotal evidence of any kind
> 2.  No references to any person, group, or demographic.
> 3.  No reference to anybody's moral, religious, or ethical convictions.
> 4.  No reference to anybody's feelings.
> 5.  No copy and paste of anybody's statistics or studies or opinion.
> 
> I am guessing that most conservatives could come up with a reasoned argument for their point of view.
> 
> I am guessing that most liberals could not.
> 
> I can't test my theory for I have yet to find a liberal willing to take me up on on the challenge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ha!  Why don't you do it first then?  What a blowhard.*
Click to expand...


Oh I have done it many times.  Will you take the challenge?  Using my five point rules?   Perhaps you could offer five proposed topics and I will offer five proposed topics and we might be able to agree on one out of those offered as a point of view to defend?  And each will provide their 100-word or so argument to defend our respective points of view?


----------



## Truthseeker420

thereisnospoon said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sowell is brilliant. And makes liberals want to spit chewed nails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is certainly smart enough to know he can make money being the village idiot(useful idiot) specializing in assuage of rich white guilt.
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlss_LiNeJk]Monty Python - Village Idiots - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJuwLsoo4hs]Everything Thomas Sowell Thinks is Wrong - Education - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HA...It is the notion of 'rich white guilt which has made blue states out of the entire northeast, upper midwest and California. Ironically where most of the nation's wealth is located. And in the hands of the very people your side accuses of being conservative.
> What a bunch of hypocritical bullshit.
Click to expand...


I disagree. How has rich white guilt made blue states? can you expound on that?


----------



## thereisnospoon

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *All they know is what Sean, Glenn and now Alex Jones tell them.
> 
> Oh yeah, let's not forget that they have put Ann Coulter on the best sellers list for years now.  *
Click to expand...

You can go on believing that if it makes you feel better.


----------



## Truthseeker420

Foxfyre said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you and those like you hate Thomas Sowell?  Even to the point that you would listen to a village idiot say what he says instead of listening to what Thomas Sowell says?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I do not hate Sowell, I don't know him....but the video has Sowell speaking on education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but smart people don't go to a heavily edited attack video to get quotations to accuse people.  Smart people go to the source itself and see what the person said in context.  Sowell has done exhaustive research, commentary, and lecturing on education.  He may be more knowledgeable on the subject than anybody living these days and he documents his facts and figures very very well.
> 
> I have read much, if not most, that he has offered on the subject and he documents his facts and figures very very well.
> 
> Have you?   Are you smart?
Click to expand...


It wasn't an attack or edited. And he gave facts to dispute Sowell. How do feel he misrepresented Sowell's comments? I agree the headline is a little rhetorical.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Truthseeker420 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is certainly smart enough to know he can make money being the village idiot(useful idiot) specializing in assuage of rich white guilt.
> 
> 
> Monty Python - Village Idiots - YouTube
> 
> Everything Thomas Sowell Thinks is Wrong - Education - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> HA...It is the notion of 'rich white guilt which has made blue states out of the entire northeast, upper midwest and California. Ironically where most of the nation's wealth is located. And in the hands of the very people your side accuses of being conservative.
> What a bunch of hypocritical bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. How has rich white guilt made blue states? can you expound on that?
Click to expand...

It did not 'make' them. They were blue to begin with.
The most wealthy areas tend to vote democrat.


----------



## Truthseeker420

thereisnospoon said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> HA...It is the notion of 'rich white guilt which has made blue states out of the entire northeast, upper midwest and California. Ironically where most of the nation's wealth is located. And in the hands of the very people your side accuses of being conservative.
> What a bunch of hypocritical bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. How has rich white guilt made blue states? can you expound on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It did not 'make' them. They were blue to begin with.
> The most wealthy areas tend to vote democrat.
Click to expand...


I agree somewhat "wealthy areas tend to vote democrat". But it it conservatives who feel guilty for giving welfare for the rich and cutting programs for the poor.


----------



## Beachboy

As an Independent I see pluses and minuses for liberals and conservatives.

I hate liberals when they get on their high horses like they are the only ones on high ethical ground.  Liberalism is easy, you want to give everything to everyone.  What liberals have not figured out is that there are not enough resources to do that.   But, on and on they go pontificating and showing the rest of us that they are impractical and do not understand the world of hard-ball politics.

Conservatives vomit extreme ideas all over the place because they can not win arguments based upon their own ideas.  This is not true, conservatives have some good ideas for American voters.  I think most people buy the idea of people taking responsibility for their own lives.  Welfare is supposed to be a temporary helping hand, not a lifestyle.  I don't blame conservatives for being angry.  Got to go with the law of survival in the jungle with these guys.  The planet has an OVERPOPULATION PROBLEM not an EMPLOYMENT PROBLEM.   If you are poor, have five kids, and you die, I am not going to pick up the tab for your stupidity in having puppies you could not afford.


----------



## SAYIT

Wicked Jester said:


> MondoBongo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well then, I guess you didn't witness the Clinton years, where there was much compromise going on....*Ya' see, unlike the inept fool we now have occupying the Oval Office, at least William Jethro had the ability to lead, and reach across the aisle without back stabbing the other side when compromise was reached, as Obama has done.....But then, Obama is nothing more than a divider, with zero ability to lead, there is no way to deny it now, and that will be his ultimate legacy as the history books are written.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which Clinton years are you talking about?  I'm really impressed by the rose colored glasses through which many on the right now view the Clinton years.  To me, it was one witch hunt after another by those on the right.  Richard Mellon Scaiffe funded organizations specifically designed to bring down the Clinton Presidency.  When Clinton responded to the attack on the USS Cole, he was roundly accused of "wagging the dog" by those on the right who felt he used the incident to detract from the Lewinsky scandal.
> 
> When he sent troops into Bosnia, it most certainly was not with the support of Republicans.  When he fired on a known al-qaida training camp in an effort to get bin Laden, it was definitely NOT with the support of Republicans.
> 
> Did he bend over backward to accommodate conservatives regarding NAFTA?  welfare reform?  DOMA?  and DADT?  You betcha.  But that's not compromise.  That's capitulating. Big difference.
> 
> Face it.  Those on your side hated Clinton and everything he did and everything he stood for every bit as much as you all hate Obama now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> You actually think there isn't going to be push back from an opposing side during ANY presidency?.....Damn right there is, and should be.
> 
> Attacking a known terrorist camp..Ya' mean the one that was KNOWN to be empty, and bin-Laden was known to be nowhere near?.....Yeah, he deserved to be hammered over that fiasco. Just as he deserves to be hammered for wasting other opportunities to take bin-Laden out when he had the clear opportunity....At least he's willing to admit it's his biggest regret, as it should be, when you directly have the blood of thousands of americans murdered on 9/11 staining your hands due to your abject failures.
> 
> And, it's also quite funny how you libs cannot bring yourselves to say the word compromise, and can only claim "capitulation," when one of your brethren actually does "compromise" on an issue with the other side.....And that is exactly why one should NEVER take a liberal seriously....Dealing in honesty is not a liberals forte.
Click to expand...


I do not agree that getting OBL 20 years ago would have stopped 9/11, just as getting him in 2011 didn't stop the Boston Bombings in 2013. His brand of violent Islamism did and does exist without him. Another wealthy ideologue would have taken OBL's place and the result would have been more or less the same.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Truthseeker420 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. How has rich white guilt made blue states? can you expound on that?
> 
> 
> 
> It did not 'make' them. They were blue to begin with.
> The most wealthy areas tend to vote democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree somewhat "wealthy areas tend to vote democrat". But it it conservatives who feel guilty for giving welfare for the rich and cutting programs for the poor.
Click to expand...


Name one federal program 'for the poor' that has been "cut"?
And please provide examples of 'conservatives giving welfare to the rich'..
This ought to be good.


----------



## Samson

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



They encourage the government to remove more money from my family.

Is that a "real" enough reason?



I also hate burglers, robbers, thieves, and bandits.


----------



## Truthseeker420

Samson said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They encourage the government to remove more money from my family.
> 
> Is that a "real" enough reason?
> 
> 
> 
> I also hate burglers, robbers, thieves, and bandits.
Click to expand...


Reagan, H Bush both raised taxes and Dumbya spent money that he knew someone would have to pay for...


----------



## Wicked Jester

SAYIT said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MondoBongo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Clinton years are you talking about?  I'm really impressed by the rose colored glasses through which many on the right now view the Clinton years.  To me, it was one witch hunt after another by those on the right.  Richard Mellon Scaiffe funded organizations specifically designed to bring down the Clinton Presidency.  When Clinton responded to the attack on the USS Cole, he was roundly accused of "wagging the dog" by those on the right who felt he used the incident to detract from the Lewinsky scandal.
> 
> When he sent troops into Bosnia, it most certainly was not with the support of Republicans.  When he fired on a known al-qaida training camp in an effort to get bin Laden, it was definitely NOT with the support of Republicans.
> 
> Did he bend over backward to accommodate conservatives regarding NAFTA?  welfare reform?  DOMA?  and DADT?  You betcha.  But that's not compromise.  That's capitulating. Big difference.
> 
> Face it.  Those on your side hated Clinton and everything he did and everything he stood for every bit as much as you all hate Obama now.
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> You actually think there isn't going to be push back from an opposing side during ANY presidency?.....Damn right there is, and should be.
> 
> Attacking a known terrorist camp..Ya' mean the one that was KNOWN to be empty, and bin-Laden was known to be nowhere near?.....Yeah, he deserved to be hammered over that fiasco. Just as he deserves to be hammered for wasting other opportunities to take bin-Laden out when he had the clear opportunity....At least he's willing to admit it's his biggest regret, as it should be, when you directly have the blood of thousands of americans murdered on 9/11 staining your hands due to your abject failures.
> 
> And, it's also quite funny how you libs cannot bring yourselves to say the word compromise, and can only claim "capitulation," when one of your brethren actually does "compromise" on an issue with the other side.....And that is exactly why one should NEVER take a liberal seriously....Dealing in honesty is not a liberals forte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not agree that getting OBL 20 years ago would have stopped 9/11, just as getting him in 2011 didn't stop the Boston Bombings in 2013. His brand of violent Islamism did and does exist without him. Another wealthy ideologue would have taken OBL's place and the result would have been more or less the same.
Click to expand...

bin-Laden was the face of al-Qaeda....The man who declared war, the financier, the motivation....Damn sure had we been serious about killing his ass, 9/11 would not have happened.....Clinton made us look weak, like we did not have the resolve to put up a serious fight....It was HIS failures that helped feed the beast, and even HE admits he royally fucked up.

The Boston bombing had squat to do with bin-Laden, and that is becoming quite obvious.


----------



## Wicked Jester

thereisnospoon said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did not 'make' them. They were blue to begin with.
> The most wealthy areas tend to vote democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree somewhat "wealthy areas tend to vote democrat". But it it conservatives who feel guilty for giving welfare for the rich and cutting programs for the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one federal program 'for the poor' that has been "cut"?
> And please provide examples of 'conservatives giving welfare to the rich'..
> This ought to be good.
Click to expand...

That's the thing about libs, they actually think that going after fraud, waste, and abuse is akin to "cuts."

And that is exactly why you take anything a liberal says with a grain of salt...They don't deal in honesty, it's all about false hyperbole with them.....Basically, it's all about phoney dramatics, nothing more.


----------



## Truthseeker420

thereisnospoon said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did not 'make' them. They were blue to begin with.
> The most wealthy areas tend to vote democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree somewhat "wealthy areas tend to vote democrat". But it it conservatives who feel guilty for giving welfare for the rich and cutting programs for the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one federal program 'for the poor' that has been "cut"?
> And please provide examples of 'conservatives giving welfare to the rich'..
> This ought to be good.
Click to expand...


Why does it have to be federal?

Washington?s Hunger Games: Sequester?s Cuts to Food Assistance Programs - The Daily Beast

Post-Welfare Reform Trends Plus Deeper Spending Cuts Could Equal Disaster for the Nation?s Poor | Center for American Progress

General Assistance Programs: Safety Net Weakening Despite Increased Need ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Private sector parasites - Salon.com

http://www.progress.org/banneker/cw.html


----------



## Wicked Jester

Truthseeker420 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree somewhat "wealthy areas tend to vote democrat". But it it conservatives who feel guilty for giving welfare for the rich and cutting programs for the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one federal program 'for the poor' that has been "cut"?
> And please provide examples of 'conservatives giving welfare to the rich'..
> This ought to be good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it have to be federal?
> 
> Washington?s Hunger Games: Sequester?s Cuts to Food Assistance Programs - The Daily Beast
> 
> Post-Welfare Reform Trends Plus Deeper Spending Cuts Could Equal Disaster for the Nation?s Poor | Center for American Progress
> 
> General Assistance Programs: Safety Net Weakening Despite Increased Need ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> Private sector parasites - Salon.com
> 
> Corporate Welfare Headquarters Corporate Welfare Shame Page
Click to expand...

LMAO!

Your links alone, fully prove why one should NEVER take a liberal seriously.....It's all bullshit, nothing more......Too fuckin' funny!


----------



## Truthseeker420

Wicked Jester said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one federal program 'for the poor' that has been "cut"?
> And please provide examples of 'conservatives giving welfare to the rich'..
> This ought to be good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it have to be federal?
> 
> Washington?s Hunger Games: Sequester?s Cuts to Food Assistance Programs - The Daily Beast
> 
> Post-Welfare Reform Trends Plus Deeper Spending Cuts Could Equal Disaster for the Nation?s Poor | Center for American Progress
> 
> General Assistance Programs: Safety Net Weakening Despite Increased Need ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> Private sector parasites - Salon.com
> 
> Corporate Welfare Headquarters Corporate Welfare Shame Page
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Your links alone, fully prove why one should NEVER take a liberal seriously.....It's all bullshit, nothing more......Too fuckin' funny!
Click to expand...


It's all bullshit? every word?


----------



## Inkslinger

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Intellectual envy?
Holding one's self accountable was never a RW trait, and with the rise in unpopularity with the Teanderthal Repub Party, they're only projecting on liberals.


----------



## editec

> Why do people hate Liberals?



I think in most cases its because the haters confuse our government and the corporations that own it with liberalism.

They call, as but one example, the people running the FED,_ liberals_


----------



## Circe

Saigon said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't see a lot of more left wing posters going on about "typical conservative mindset" or claiming "conservatives are so stupid".
> 
> I'm glad we don't see that, but still...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see it all the time here. I suspect you just can't see it because it seems justified and okay to you. Perhaps you should read more carefully -- it's there, the same kind of put-downs by leftists that conservatives do.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mac1958

.

Oh good grief, there's plenty of hatred spewed here by both ends of the political spectrum.  The only way a person wouldn't realize that is if they're blinded by their own partisan ideology.  

I try to look at the bright side and hope that the anger provides a catharsis so that the hate won't be used by these people in "real life".

.


----------



## Circe

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Oh good grief, there's plenty of hatred spewed here by both ends of the political spectrum.  The only way a person wouldn't realize that is if they're blinded by their own partisan ideology.
> 
> *I try to look at the bright side and hope that the anger provides a catharsis so that the hate won't be used by these people in "real life".*




It will, though, IMO ---- the reason there is so much hate here is that this is the normal process of revving up for civil war. Half the country hates and wants defeated the other half, and to fight and win humans HAVE to depersonalize and demonize the enemy so they can fight them effectively. 

The depersonalization and dehumanizing is going on now as we all get ready to fight each other. Say, any older posters think they've ever seen American-American hatred this virulent before? No, I didn't think so, me neither.


----------



## SAYIT

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Oh good grief, there's plenty of hatred spewed here by both ends of the political spectrum.  The only way a person wouldn't realize that is if they're blinded by their own partisan ideology.
> 
> I try to look at the bright side and hope that the anger provides a catharsis so that the hate won't be used by these people in "real life".



If not cathartic, at least therapeutic.


----------



## SAYIT

Circe said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Oh good grief, there's plenty of hatred spewed here by both ends of the political spectrum.  The only way a person wouldn't realize that is if they're blinded by their own partisan ideology.
> 
> *I try to look at the bright side and hope that the anger provides a catharsis so that the hate won't be used by these people in "real life".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will, though, IMO ---- the reason there is so much hate here is that this is the normal process of revving up for civil war. Half the country hates and wants defeated the other half, and to fight and win humans HAVE to depersonalize and demonize the enemy so they can fight them effectively.
> 
> The depersonalization and dehumanizing is going on now as we all get ready to fight each other. Say, any older posters think they've ever seen American-American hatred this virulent before? No, I didn't think so, me neither.
Click to expand...


Politics, at least the big eastern city variety, has long had a violence to it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

WethePeopleUS said:


> How about this. Why don't you take my post, research what I cited, and then prove my statements wrong.



Ah, the refrain of the mindless; "prove me wrong."

Not the way it works, sparky. YOU must prove your assertions have merit. The onus is upon the claimant to prove his claim. 



> Unless you do so, then you are a simpleton, who is blinded by stupidity. Until you prove absolutely that what I said what "spewing hate" you willbe regarded as  a useless troll



Proving that you are spewing hate is simple, I merely point up the fact that you use the leftist hate sites as your source.

You lack the wits to offer a cogent argument - you are but another leftist monkey throwing feces at passers by - you are a *feral baboon.*


----------



## Uncensored2008

WethePeopleUS said:


> So 3 days later, and still no rebuttal on how I was wrong  ... so either you can't find it, or you are still trying LOL.... either way, YOU GOT OWNED!!!



First off fucktard, if you want to play kewl, you would say "you got pwned."

Beyond that, you mindless monkey, shrieking that others must prove that the idiocy you cut and paste from the hate sites is wrong merely illustrates what an intellectual midget you are.


----------



## Foxfyre

Truthseeker420 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I do not hate Sowell, I don't know him....but the video has Sowell speaking on education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but smart people don't go to a heavily edited attack video to get quotations to accuse people.  Smart people go to the source itself and see what the person said in context.  Sowell has done exhaustive research, commentary, and lecturing on education.  He may be more knowledgeable on the subject than anybody living these days and he documents his facts and figures very very well.
> 
> I have read much, if not most, that he has offered on the subject and he documents his facts and figures very very well.
> 
> Have you?   Are you smart?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't an attack or edited. And he gave facts to dispute Sowell. How do feel he misrepresented Sowell's comments? I agree the headline is a little rhetorical.
Click to expand...


The video was an attack on Thomas Sowell's point of view and so tightly edited that it showed only two or three sentences of Sowell's commentary out of much broader perspective that he applied.  You can probably make a video of the Pope declaring the world is flat if you ignore all the qualifications and other points he makes in a prolonged commentary.

Thomas Sowell is a PhD economist, and he does his homework.  He has also been an educator and again, has done exhaustive research and has written extensively on the subject.  Of course he is human and he could be wrong about any given detail.   But I would certainly hear him out over some liberal who loves big government and thinks it can do no wrong in education or anything else.  

Sowell, a committed libertarian, is also as critical of the Republicans as he is the Democrats when they get it wrong and/or pass indefensible policy or that with unacceptable unintended consequences.

Sowell's sin, in the eyes of liberals, is that he exposes the folly of liberal thnk and the liberal mindset and the negatives we suffer as a result of liberal policy.

Smart people want to know the truth rather than to exhonerate an ideology.


----------



## Redfish

I don't hate liberals,  I hate liberalism.   I feel sorry for liberals because their defective gene keeps them from thinking rationally.


----------



## Foxfyre

Redfish said:


> I don't hate liberals,  I hate liberalism.   I feel sorry for liberals because their defective gene keeps them from thinking rationally.



I don't hate liberals or liberalism--I know many who are good, sensitive, caring, creative, intelligent people--but I too believe most liberals are unable or unwilling to think objectively and that does sometimes seem to produce an irrationality born out of mostly ignorance.

Those 'shades of gray' mentioned in the opening posts are something like a fog that prevents many liberals, even some conservatives, from being able to see clearly what the actual affects and consequences that something creates are.  And in both it can create prejudices making people see only the negative--or make it up--while ignoring or denying any good.

In my opinion, any value or concept or consequence can be expressed without referencing or trashing a single other person, group, demographic, etc.  For a conservative, certain principles and/or the results or effect of policy is discernable and describable.  Whether or not they DO describe them without showing personal prejudices and being insulting, it has been my experience that most conservatives CAN describe principles, concept, and effects without even referencing other people or concepts.

It has been my experience that most liberals cannot.

And so far not a single self-professed liberal in my life has been willing to accept my challenge to test my theory about that.  And I have offered.  On this thread and many others and in real life.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Uncensored2008 said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this. Why don't you take my post, research what I cited, and then prove my statements wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the refrain of the mindless; "prove me wrong."
> 
> Not the way it works, sparky. YOU must prove your assertions have merit. The onus is upon the claimant to prove his claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you do so, then you are a simpleton, who is blinded by stupidity. Until you prove absolutely that what I said what "spewing hate" you willbe regarded as  a useless troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proving that you are spewing hate is simple, I merely point up the fact that you use the leftist hate sites as your source.
> 
> You lack the wits to offer a cogent argument - you are but another leftist monkey throwing feces at passers by - you are a *feral baboon.*
Click to expand...


I stated the truth, and it is your job to prove me wrong, if you disagree, or think I am lying or spewing hate, and blah blah blah.. until you prove me wrong, like I said, you= FAIL


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Uncensored2008 said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 3 days later, and still no rebuttal on how I was wrong  ... so either you can't find it, or you are still trying LOL.... either way, YOU GOT OWNED!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off fucktard, if you want to play kewl, you would say "you got pwned."
> 
> Beyond that, you mindless monkey, shrieking that others must prove that the idiocy you cut and paste from the hate sites is wrong merely illustrates what an intellectual midget you are.
Click to expand...


Didn't use pwned because we aren't playing a video game, idiot. And if I am copying and pasting lies, feel free to prove me wrong... until then, you got OWNED!!


----------



## nodoginnafight

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



I think your statement "And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives." is disengenious. I can't say what you have or what you haven't seen, but I've seen those attacks go both ways. Granted, you'll see more right on left "violence" on the boards than visa - versa, but I believe that's just because there are more extreme righties on these boards than extreme lefties.

I also believe that right-wing opinion leaders tend to resort to personal attack when (as so often happens) their reason proves inadequate. Most on these boards are just parroting those slogans, because they too find their ability to reason inadequate.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Circe said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Oh good grief, there's plenty of hatred spewed here by both ends of the political spectrum.  The only way a person wouldn't realize that is if they're blinded by their own partisan ideology.
> 
> *I try to look at the bright side and hope that the anger provides a catharsis so that the hate won't be used by these people in "real life".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will, though, IMO ---- the reason there is so much hate here is that this is the normal process of revving up for civil war. Half the country hates and wants defeated the other half, and to fight and win humans HAVE to depersonalize and demonize the enemy so they can fight them effectively.
> 
> The depersonalization and dehumanizing is going on now as we all get ready to fight each other. Say, any older posters think they've ever seen American-American hatred this virulent before? No, I didn't think so, me neither.
Click to expand...


? they used to duel remember? and we had that little thing called the civil war, if thats not hate I dont know what is. it has been going on forever.


----------



## Uncensored2008

WethePeopleUS said:


> I stated the truth, and it is your job to prove me wrong, if you disagree, or think I am lying or spewing hate, and blah blah blah.. until you prove me wrong, like I said, you= FAIL



Is that right sparky?

You stated "DA TROOOFFFF."

Well let's look, you shit eating moron.

Hmmm, what does your hate site have to offer?

{1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker. }

Bold assertion, no wonder the Soros group offers solid evidence.

Oh wait - they offer no evidence at all - they simply slander their opponents loosely based on the misreporting of a candidate in the last election. 

But to a mindless fuckwad like you, it's "DA TROOOFFFF." After all, your party said it - and you believe EVERYTHING your party tells you - thinking is hard, or at least you heard it was. You don't know for sure, but you're not willing to chance it.

Next we have the doozy that REPUBLICANS LEGALIZE KILLING ABORTIONISTS. And you puke out that  it's "DA TROOOFFFF." 

Now the fuckwads at the hate site MoveOn use another hate site, Salon to base their slander and libel on. Goddamn, almost like the Aryan Brotherhood citing the KKK to prove their claims.

But let's look into the shit stains at Salon - what is their claim?

Oh wait - those fucks pass on to ANOTHER hate site, Mother Jones.

By the time we get to the Mother Jones hate site, the original fabrication is deflated to;

{The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the states legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person while resisting an attempt to harm that persons unborn child or the unborn child of that persons spouse, partner, parent, or child.}

Even this is a fabrication;

"If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion." 

BUT since you are a mindless drone, spewing hate, which no ability to formulate a thought,  it's "DA TROOOFFFF." 

You're dismissed, moron.


----------



## numan

bear513 said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will, though, IMO ---- the reason there is so much hate here is that this is the normal process of revving up for civil war. Half the country hates and wants defeated the other half, and to fight and win humans HAVE to depersonalize and demonize the enemy so they can fight them effectively.
> 
> The depersonalization and dehumanizing is going on now as we all get ready to fight each other. Say, any older posters think they've ever seen American-American hatred this virulent before? No, I didn't think so, me neither.
> 
> 
> 
> ? they used to duel remember? and we had that little thing called the civil war, if thats not hate I dont know what is.
Click to expand...

That's true, but that wasn't the question. I don't think anyone here is old enough to have seen the hatred of the 1850's and 60's (though the 1960's were getting close).

It is quite obvious that America's rulers are using their well-honed Brainwashing Machine to get Americans hating and fighting each other, so that they may be looted and controlled even more expertly than they already are.
.


----------



## Spoonman

Saigon said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their economic theory's are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see there is any evidence of that at a theoertical level.
> 
> Some of the world's most succesful governments have been liberal.
> 
> In fact, I think you'd struggle to mount a case that conservatives have a better economi record in government that liberals. In any country.
Click to expand...


yea but there is plenty on a practical level.  just take a look at the state of our economy.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Uncensored2008 said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stated the truth, and it is your job to prove me wrong, if you disagree, or think I am lying or spewing hate, and blah blah blah.. until you prove me wrong, like I said, you= FAIL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that right sparky?
> 
> You stated "DA TROOOFFFF."
> 
> Well let's look, you shit eating moron.
> 
> Hmmm, what does your hate site have to offer?
> 
> {1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker. }
> 
> Bold assertion, no wonder the Soros group offers solid evidence.
> 
> Oh wait - they offer no evidence at all - they simply slander their opponents loosely based on the misreporting of a candidate in the last election.
> 
> But to a mindless fuckwad like you, it's "DA TROOOFFFF." After all, your party said it - and you believe EVERYTHING your party tells you - thinking is hard, or at least you heard it was. You don't know for sure, but you're not willing to chance it.
> 
> Next we have the doozy that REPUBLICANS LEGALIZE KILLING ABORTIONISTS. And you puke out that  it's "DA TROOOFFFF."
> 
> Now the fuckwads at the hate site MoveOn use another hate site, Salon to base their slander and libel on. Goddamn, almost like the Aryan Brotherhood citing the KKK to prove their claims.
> 
> But let's look into the shit stains at Salon - what is their claim?
> 
> Oh wait - those fucks pass on to ANOTHER hate site, Mother Jones.
> 
> By the time we get to the Mother Jones hate site, the original fabrication is deflated to;
> 
> {The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state&#8217;s legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person &#8220;while resisting an attempt to harm&#8221; that person&#8217;s unborn child or the unborn child of that person&#8217;s spouse, partner, parent, or child.}
> 
> Even this is a fabrication;
> 
> "If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion."
> 
> BUT since you are a mindless drone, spewing hate, which no ability to formulate a thought,  it's "DA TROOOFFFF."
> 
> You're dismissed, moron.
Click to expand...


Like I said before, TAKE MY ORIGINAL STATEMENTS, AND THEN PROVE EXACTLY WHAT I SAID WAS WRONG (that actually means finding evidence to the contrary of what I said, not just your insignificant OPINION). That would require that you take my original statements, and then individually proving each statement I said was wrong. Until you do, you still FAIL!! And you can name-call all you want. Doesn't change the fact conservatives ARE TRYING TO MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL!! I have seen you say what you think, however offer NO factual evidence to support your argument (that means citing references). And just a fyi, the name-calling only makes you look like an ignorant child. But I guess you conservatives are used to that haha. And I never said REPUBLICANS LEGALIZE KILLING ABORTIONISTS. If you actually could read, I said that a bill was introduced.... NEVER said it passed, or was legal. Gosh, if you are that thick, and reading comprehension is low on your list of intellectual traits, I am done talking.


----------



## Unkotare

Circe said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Oh good grief, there's plenty of hatred spewed here by both ends of the political spectrum.  The only way a person wouldn't realize that is if they're blinded by their own partisan ideology.
> 
> *I try to look at the bright side and hope that the anger provides a catharsis so that the hate won't be used by these people in "real life".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will, though, IMO ---- the reason there is so much hate here is that this is the normal process of revving up for civil war. Half the country hates and wants defeated the other half, and to fight and win humans HAVE to depersonalize and demonize the enemy so they can fight them effectively.
> 
> The depersonalization and dehumanizing is going on now as we all get ready to fight each other. Say, any older posters think they've ever seen American-American hatred this virulent before? No, I didn't think so, me neither.
Click to expand...


It's always been like this. We are a contentious people. We're meant to be. Ease off the fucking drama queen bullshit.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Back to Lenin? Bolshevism as Barbarism*


May 7, 2013 By Vladimir Tismaneanu






It has become fashionable among leftist circles to invoke a return to Lenin, to radicalism, to utopia. Among those who advocate such imperative to retest the communist hypothesis one can count French philosopher Alain Badiou, a former admirer of the Khmer Rouges, and Slovene thinker, Slavoj Zizek, the new idol of Western university campuses, subject of documentary hagiographic movies, and prophet of a new phantasmagoric world revolution. Did the partisans of such positions ever stop to think how it would sound a call for retesting the Nazi hypothesis? One must be totally oblivious to history, an incurable cynic, in order to ignore the fact that Leninism, just like National-Socialism, means political terrorism, the apotheosis of fanatical partisanship, the boundless cult of violence and nihilism, etc. In short, Leninism presupposes all of what Polish poet Aleksander Wat called the destruction of the inner man. Leninism is theoretical and practical anti-humanism.

There have been conferences and symposia where Lenin is presented, in an academic context and without any trace of compassion for the millions of victims of the great experiment, as the philosopher of the break with an order putatively condemned by history. All in all, it is unsurprising that the prophets of violence worship Lenin. What is surprising is that intellectuals, who should have learnt from the catastrophes of the 20th century, are engaged in an endeavor driven by n programmatic irresponsibility. It is simply shocking that in countries where the Leninist model was implemented, one can still read and hear hymns honoring the architect of a criminal system.

...

Leninism is a revolutionary doctrine that sanctifies political violence and condemns entire social categories to state-engineered extinction. It is a secular demonology constructing a cosmogony of exclusion rooted in the visceral contempt for the rule of law, legality, and the universality of human rights. Back to Lenin means a return to barbarism, blindness, and murder.    

Back to Lenin? Bolshevism as Barbarism | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## Uncensored2008

WethePeopleUS said:


> Like I said before, TAKE MY ORIGINAL STATEMENTS, AND THEN PROVE EXACTLY WHAT I SAID WAS WRONG (that actually means finding evidence to the contrary of what I said, not just your insignificant OPINION).



You've been beaten, then dismissed. 

Crawl off to the gutter and lick your wounds.



> That would require that you take my original statements, and then individually proving each statement I said was wrong. Until you do, you still FAIL!! And you can name-call all you want. Doesn't change the fact conservatives ARE TRYING TO MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL!!



The only fact present is that you're a lying fuckwad.

You "think" that because you are promoting abortion, and because abortion is the singular purpose of all life, if you need to lie to promote it, well then, lying is the greatest good.



> I have seen you say what you think, however offer NO factual evidence to support your argument (that means citing references).



You moronic fuckwad, I used YOUR sources against you. It was simple to do, because you rely on hate sites. Hate sites can never provide a cogent or consistent argument.



> And just a fyi, the name-calling only makes you look like an ignorant child. But I guess you conservatives are used to that haha. And I never said REPUBLICANS LEGALIZE KILLING ABORTIONISTS.



In fact you did - you lied - got busted, now seek to backtrack.



> If you actually could read, I said that a bill was introduced....



Which of course it wasn't - the hate site doing your thinking for you hyped and stretched facts to create a story that would excite the drones - the mindless fools like you.



> NEVER said it passed, or was legal. Gosh, if you are that thick, and reading comprehension is low on your list of intellectual traits, I am done talking.



It never existed - you lied, you lied in hopes of smearing your political opponents.

Yeah, that does reveal you as a scumbag.


----------



## numan

American_Jihad said:


> Leninism is a revolutionary doctrine that sanctifies political violence and....


...and blah blah blah....

Man, are you ever an out-dated back number!! Are you also terrified that the worship of Zeus and Osiris are going to make a comeback?

I'd urge you to join the rest of us here in the 21st century, but I honestly don't think you will ever make it here.
.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Uncensored2008 said:


> You've been beaten, then dismissed.
> 
> Crawl off to the gutter and lick your wounds.
> 
> It never existed - you lied, you lied in hopes of smearing your political opponents.
> 
> Yeah, that does reveal you as a scumbag.



Yeeaaaaa, right, so it doesn't exist eh? I got beaten huh (lmao)? Well here you go buddy. If I made it up, I guess I got ALL of these sources to make it up too huh? Your level of intelligence must be almost non-existent. TRY to READ these, and see if you can get out of the fantasy world you live in. Then you might realize you are the one who is lying through their teeth. 

Nebraska Bill Could Legalize Killing Abortion Doctors

South Dakota bill would legalize killing abortion doctors - Salon.com

The Plum Line - South Dakota legislator defends bill to make killing to defend fetuses a "justifiable homicide"

South Dakota: Defending a 'Justifiable Homicide' Bill. Does it Include Abortion Doctors? - ABC News

There are just a few sources. I know reading, and comprehending must be hard for you, but do try. The you might wrap your simple little brain around the concept that conservatives are trying to make abortion ILLEGAL! So if anything, your unintelligent ranting and raving has done nothing but prove just how much of a scumbag you really are! Good job buddy


----------



## Uncensored2008

WethePeopleUS said:


> Yeeaaaaa, right, so it doesn't exist eh? I got beaten huh (lmao)? Well here you go buddy. If I made it up, I guess I got ALL of these sources to make it up too huh? Your level of intelligence must be almost non-existent. TRY to READ these, and see if you can get out of the fantasy world you live in. Then you might realize you are the one who is lying through their teeth.




"If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion." 

Obamunists - stupid as sand...


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Uncensored2008 said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeeaaaaa, right, so it doesn't exist eh? I got beaten huh (lmao)? Well here you go buddy. If I made it up, I guess I got ALL of these sources to make it up too huh? Your level of intelligence must be almost non-existent. TRY to READ these, and see if you can get out of the fantasy world you live in. Then you might realize you are the one who is lying through their teeth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion."
> 
> Obamunists - stupid as sand...
Click to expand...


HAHAHA YOU'RE SUCH A FAILURE AND NOW IT IS EVER SO EVIDENT!!! Good luck in your future endeavors, for I am sure that the simple task of walking and chewing gum poses a threat to your intelligence. I will say a prayer for ya


----------



## NLT

> Why do people hate Liberals?


See the following
Bodecea
Ravi
Article 15
FrancoFW
Rdean
TM
Grandma
Shaman
rightwinger
swallow
Twat com
Plasma Ball
Seawytch
Dante
Marcatl
Black Label
George Costanza
Feel free to add any other I have missed.


----------



## Uncensored2008

WethePeopleUS said:


> HAHAHA YOU'RE SUCH A FAILURE AND NOW IT IS EVER SO EVIDENT!!! Good luck in your future endeavors, for I am sure that the simple task of walking and chewing gum poses a threat to your intelligence. I will say a prayer for ya



Well, that'll work... 

Say stupid, did you notice your own links refuted you?

You're not stupid because you're a leftist: You're a leftist because you're stupid. 

Question fuckwad, do you view every live birth as a tragic failure to abort?


----------



## 007




----------



## 007




----------



## 007




----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

007 said:


>


*
I don't think I've ever seen anyone demonstrate such raw, irrational fear on this board, or any other for that matter. 
"007"....that explains it.*


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

007 said:


>


*
Yep, it was just Ronald McDonald and he changed everything....uh huh.*


----------



## Misty

Why do people hate liberals? Liberals are mewling quims.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Misty said:


> Why do people hate liberals? They are mewling quims.



*And I bet that's your real picture, too.*


----------



## skye

I  do not like radical liberals because they are a bunch of bleeding hearts....well meaning useful idiots ...and I mean no offense.


----------



## American_Jihad

numan said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leninism is a revolutionary doctrine that sanctifies political violence and....
> 
> 
> 
> ...and blah blah blah....
> 
> Man, are you ever an out-dated back number!! Are you also terrified that the worship of Zeus and Osiris are going to make a comeback?
> 
> I'd urge you to join the rest of us here in the 21st century, but I honestly don't think you will ever make it here.
> .
Click to expand...


Said the moron with five jewish red stars, what a num/nut...


----------



## 007

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> I don't think I've ever seen anyone demonstrate such raw, irrational fear on this board, or any other for that matter.
> "007"....that explains it.*
Click to expand...


Nice attempt at DRAMA... quennie... but you're still an amateur around here.

Gonna have to step up your game to play with this crowd, moron.


----------



## Mr. H.

I don't hate my Liberal friends, I just don't understand them. 

They are much better off than me financially, yet they brow beat me because of how I derive my income. I live much more modestly than they but that matters not. They are covered by public pension while I cover my ass privately. They  have the convenience of retiring early while I can never retire. Yet my private employment places me below them. 

It's like they feed off my loss to support their gain. And they put me down for it. 

And that... is fucked up.


----------



## BlueGin

NLT said:


> Why do people hate Liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> See the following
> Bodecea
> Ravi
> Article 15
> FrancoFW
> Rdean
> TM
> Grandma
> Shaman
> rightwinger
> swallow
> Twat com
> Plasma Ball
> Seawytch
> Dante
> Marcatl
> Black Label
> George Costanza
> Feel free to add any other I have missed.
Click to expand...


That's not saying much. My list of libertarians and right wingers is a least that long.


----------



## Misty

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people hate liberals? They are mewling quims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And I bet that's your real picture, too.*
Click to expand...


No it's not me. I'm hotter.


----------



## Misty

Mr. H. said:


> I don't hate my Liberal friends, I just don't understand them.
> They are much better off than me financially, yet they brow beat me because of how I derive my income. I live much more modestly than they but that matters not. They are covered by public pension while I cover my ass privately. They  have the convenience of retiring early while I can never retire. Yet my private employment places me below them.
> 
> It's like they feed off my loss to support their gain. And they put me down for it.
> 
> And that... is fucked up.



You and me both mr. h. Be proud.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Misty said:


> You and me both mr. h. Be proud.



Me too. We work, to support our public masters in their life of leisure.


----------



## Uncensored2008

BlueGin said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people hate Liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> See the following
> Bodecea
> Ravi
> Article 15
> FrancoFW
> Rdean
> TM
> Grandma
> Shaman
> rightwinger
> swallow
> Twat com
> Plasma Ball
> Seawytch
> Dante
> Marcatl
> Black Label
> George Costanza
> Feel free to add any other I have missed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not saying much. My list of libertarians and right wingers is a least that long.
Click to expand...


BUT nowhere near as disreputable.

I'm just sayin....


----------



## whitehall

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Libs love to throw the "H" word around. It seems like liberals hate themselves and their Country so their bi-polar condition causes them to lash out at Christians and Jews and the Constitution.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Saigon said:


> Why do people hate Liberals?





Because they hate themselves.


----------



## Foxfyre

whitehall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libs love to throw the "H" word around. It seems like liberals hate themselves and their Country so their bi-polar condition causes them to lash out at Christians and Jews and the Constitution.
Click to expand...


In liberalspeak, anybody who criticzes a leftist/liberal/progressive/democrat is speaking hate.

In liberalspeak, anybody who objects to a tyranny of poliical correctness is somebody who hates, is prejudiced, is extreme, who wants everything evil and nothing that is good, yadda yadda.

In liberalspeak, anybody who holds beliefs or opinions contrary to the prevailing liberal talking points is extremist, fanatical, stupid, ignorant, and yes, hateful.

So the premise of the OP from the get go is flawed in that it asks a question based on a false assumption.

The better question is why do some oppose liberals and/or liberalism?

But then since I have never found a liberal willing to even try to articulate a defense of liberalism that does not hold up some other country or entity as better than the USA or that does not base their entire belief system on 'hating' conservatives and conservative values, it is very difficult to have a comprehensive discussion.


----------



## rdean

The Republican leadership sees corporations as people.  They see their base as someplace to wipe their shoes.  Corporations don't hate liberals.  But the Republican leadership has only contempt for their base.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Liberals accuse everyone who disagrees with them of hating.


----------



## Wolfsister77

I love the blanket statements and generalizations on both sides-NOT.

Since this is about Liberals, let me suggest those of you stating things about Liberals as if they were fact, really don't have a clue. You say as though it were the truth just because you say so, that Liberals hate this country, hate the constitution, hate themselves, hate those that disagree with them, think those that disagree with them are hateful, believe in Socialism, believe that the Government should give handouts, believe they are stupid, can't debate because they choose not to debate on your terms, think you win just because you say things and get support from others with like minded beliefs.....etc. etc. etc.

Let me repeat-you don't have a clue. Instead of coming here telling us all how Liberals and Liberalism stinks according to you, how about you do some research on the subject or better yet-ask a Liberal what they think or several Liberals, not only here but everywhere you encounter them.

I make it a habit not to respond to the vile things some of you say about Liberals but it doesn't mean I don't want to debate or agree. I just don't respond. And yes, there are some here that do the same to Conservatives and I don't like that either.

Rant over.


----------



## numan

'
*WHY MINDLESS PROTO-FASCISTS DISGUST ME*






*Too many Americans are feeble-minded, uneducated, paranoid, emotionally-unstable, hysteria-prone Nazoids.*

Surely any sensible person would want to keep these sub-standard human products from getting their hands on guns.
.


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> '
> 
> *Too many Americans are feeble-minded, uneducated, paranoid, emotionally-unstable, hysteria-prone Nazoids.*
> 
> Surely any sensible person would want to keep these sub-standard human products from getting their hands on guns.
> .



HEY look, it's Pol Pot..

Oh wait, it's just that drooling moron, Numan..


----------



## Uncensored2008

Numan, proving that RDean actually is NOT the stupidest person on the face of the planet.....


----------



## Skull Pilot

numan said:


> '
> *WHY MINDLESS PROTO-FASCISTS DISGUST ME*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Too many Americans are feeble-minded, uneducated, paranoid, emotionally-unstable, hysteria-prone Nazoids.*
> 
> Surely any sensible person would want to keep these sub-standard human products from getting their hands on guns.
> .



That pic looks old enough for most of those people to be dead.


----------



## koshergrl

It looks like a peaceful gathering that was disrupted by union thugs to me.

I hate progressives because they embrace a culture of death, they see no value in the human race, and they seek to destroy humanity.

Anything else?

Oh yeah. Plus they're liars.


----------



## numan

koshergrl said:


> It looks like a peaceful gathering that was disrupted by union thugs to me.


No, it was the 1970 New York Hard-Hat Riot instigated by Nixon against peaceful people demonstrating in protest of the Kent State Murders.

Pretty typical in Nazoid America.
.


----------



## numan

Skull Pilot said:


> That pic looks old enough for most of those people to be dead.


One can only hope.
.


----------



## logical4u

rdean said:


> The Republican leadership sees corporations as people.  They see their base as someplace to wipe their shoes.  Corporations don't hate liberals.  But the Republican leadership has only contempt for their base.



If you do not see corporations as "people", there is no one to hold accountable for the problems that corporation causes.  If corporations are not considered people then pollution would be done by the inanimate object (corporation) which would be impossible to hold responsible, as it is an object.....


----------



## logical4u

Wolfsister77 said:


> I love the blanket statements and generalizations on both sides-NOT.
> 
> Since this is about Liberals, let me suggest those of you stating things about Liberals as if they were fact, really don't have a clue. You say as though it were the truth just because you say so, that Liberals hate this country, hate the constitution, hate themselves, hate those that disagree with them, think those that disagree with them are hateful, believe in Socialism, believe that the Government should give handouts, believe they are stupid, can't debate because they choose not to debate on your terms, think you win just because you say things and get support from others with like minded beliefs.....etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Let me repeat-you don't have a clue. Instead of coming here telling us all how Liberals and Liberalism stinks according to you, how about you do some research on the subject or better yet-ask a Liberal what they think or several Liberals, not only here but everywhere you encounter them.
> 
> I make it a habit not to respond to the vile things some of you say about Liberals but it doesn't mean I don't want to debate or agree. I just don't respond. And yes, there are some here that do the same to Conservatives and I don't like that either.
> 
> Rant over.



Okay, I'll ask a liberal.  What values do you think are worth fighting for?  What would you consider so valuable that you would put your own life on the line?  What are liberal values?  Is there a right and wrong, or is it subjective to who is doing it?  Let's start there and see how you answer....


----------



## LilOlLady

Why do people hate conservatives? It's just a natural emotion to hate what is different.


----------



## BlueGin

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the following
> Bodecea
> Ravi
> Article 15
> FrancoFW
> Rdean
> TM
> Grandma
> Shaman
> rightwinger
> swallow
> Twat com
> Plasma Ball
> Seawytch
> Dante
> Marcatl
> Black Label
> George Costanza
> Feel free to add any other I have missed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not saying much. My list of libertarians and right wingers is a least that long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BUT nowhere near as disreputable.
> 
> I'm just sayin....
Click to expand...



dis·rep·u·ta·ble  (ds-rpy-t-bl)
adj.
Lacking respectability, as in character, behavior, or appearance.



I disagree. They can be and are just as nasty.


----------



## Old Rocks

BlueGin said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not saying much. My list of libertarians and right wingers is a least that long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BUT nowhere near as disreputable.
> 
> I'm just sayin....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dis·rep·u·ta·ble  (ds-rpy-t-bl)
> adj.
> Lacking respectability, as in character, behavior, or appearance.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. They can be and are just as nasty.
Click to expand...


Dang, I didn't make the grade!!!!


----------



## numan

logical4u said:


> If you do not see corporations as "people", there is no one to hold accountable for the problems that corporation causes.  If corporations are not considered people then pollution would be done by the inanimate object (corporation) which would be impossible to hold responsible, as it is an object.....


That is the silliest defense of the "personhood" of corporations that I have ever seen !!

logical4u
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 · · · "Logical"? !!  What a misnomer!
.


----------



## JimBowie1958

BlueGin said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not saying much. My list of libertarians and right wingers is a least that long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BUT nowhere near as disreputable.
> 
> I'm just sayin....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dis·rep·u·ta·ble  (ds-rpy-t-bl)
> adj.
> Lacking respectability, as in character, behavior, or appearance.
> 
> I disagree. They can be and are just as nasty.
Click to expand...


You are either lying or are simply ignorant.

Show me one conservative college that has employed as a faculty member a known conservative terrorists who has been convicted of killing a public official like libtards have.

Till then you shouldnt repeat things you have no inkling about.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Old Rocks said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUT nowhere near as disreputable.
> 
> I'm just sayin....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dis·rep·u·ta·ble  (ds-rpy-t-bl)
> adj.
> Lacking respectability, as in character, behavior, or appearance.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. They can be and are just as nasty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dang, I didn't make the grade!!!!
Click to expand...


Old Rocks, you have said some things that I have totally disagreed with, but I have never caught you in a lie. You seem to be an honest person with some integrity.

You are no libtard; you are what liberals should be like, IMO.


----------



## squeeze berry

one reason is b/c arrogant know-it-alls such as the OP think that they know more about this country than we do

saigon


----------



## American_Jihad

*Occupy Wall Street May Day Seattle *















​


----------



## HomeInspect

Another reason to hate LIberals...  this is their culture :

So now we find out that the entire Tsarnaev family (Dad, Mom, 2 sons 2 daughters) started receiving government assistance as soon as they set foot in our country. As political refugees they were entitled to settlement assistance from day one. (Section 8 Housing, public healthcare, food stamps etc.)

Then their stellar older son impregnates and marries the daughter of a doctor, and this new little Muslim family receives 18 months of government assistance. They only came off welfare after the naïve young wife starts working 70 hours a week while husband Tamerlan stays home and builds bombs and plans to kill and injure the very Americans
who have paid for his pathetic existence for the past 12 plus years.


A Breakdown of our investment into the Tsarnaev Family:

Section 8 housing
Free public healthcare
Food stamps and other EFT transfer payments
Federal Pell Grants for both sons and most likely their daughters as well. (That is $5200.00 per year for each son or daughter who attended a college.)

City of Cambridge awarded a $2500 per year scholarship to the younger son.

Younger son also reportedly received a state college scholarship.


What did taxpayers receive for their &#8220;investment&#8221;:

· Older son was arrested for domestic battery on a former girlfriend.

· The mother was arrested last year for shoplifting $1600 in
merchandise from a Lord & Taylor store. Mother is facing immediate arrest for failure to appear regarding this matter.

· Then of course we know that the two sons combined to kill
four people (3 Americans & a Chinese exchange student), severely injure 100 plus other people, carjacked another victim and only let him live when they found out that he was not an American citizen.

· Now we have the two pathetic parents who have returned to Russia and are claiming that their poor sons are innocent and being framed by the same American government that paid for their pathetic existence the past 12 plus years.


----------



## editec

Who ARE these liberals?

That truly depends on your own point of view, doesn't it?

Some people here, for example, think Obama is a liberal.

Why? I have no idea, since his record indicates that he is neither fish nor fowl.

Some people here, for example, thought BUSH II was a conservative

He was, likewise, in my opinion, neither a conservative nor a liberal, as I define those terms.

So we can debate this issue forever as long as we all have our own particular definitions of terms, and can never come to an agreement about their meanings.

*Semantic differences *is really what drives MOST debates here.


----------



## Foxfyre

editec said:


> Who ARE these liberals?
> 
> That truly depends on your own point of view, doesn't it?
> 
> Some people here, for example, think Obama is a liberal.
> 
> Why? I have no idea, since his record indicates that he is neither fish nor fowl.
> 
> Some people here, for example, thought BUSH II was a conservative
> 
> He was, likewise, in my opinion, neither a conservative nor a liberal, as I define those terms.
> 
> So we can debate this issue forever as long as we all have our own particular definitions of terms, and can never come to an agreement about their meanings.
> 
> *Semantic differences *is really what drives MOST debates here.



Obama IS a liberal because:

1.  He embraces at least some Marxist concepts, i.e. wealth redistribution.

2.  He embraces big government solutions for every want or desire or problem, and seeks to increase the size and power of government to be in charge of every facet of our lives from health care to education to acquiring income to speech/conduct/protocol to ever expanding dependency on government.

3.  He considers everything to be the property of the people and presumes the power to determine what property shall be allocated to the people to use.

George W. Bush was also liberal in various areas looking for big government solutions to deal with:
1.  Immigration
2.  Energy
3.  Education
4.  Healthcare
5.  Environment
The only area in which he was pretty conservative was in economic policy as he did understand that all true wealth comes not from government but from private initiative.


----------



## numan

Knowing the way modern governments operate, these could just as easily be _agents provocateurs_ employed to discredit the people who are demonstrating.
.


----------



## numan

JimBowie1958 said:


> Does *'a nation of laws'* _really_ have to mean *'a nation of lawyers?'*


Apparently, under the tyranny of an irrational, archaic, out-moded Constitution, that is exactly what it does mean !!

*You'd better watch out, you'd better not cry,
You'd better not pout, I'm telling you why,
The FBI is coming to town !

They know when you are sleeping,
They know when you're awake, 
They know if you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness' sake !!*
.


----------



## jwoodie

Because liberals are dishonest to themselves and everyone around them.


----------



## Immanuel

numan said:


> Knowing the way modern governments operate, these could just as easily be _agents provocateurs_ employed to discredit the people who are demonstrating.
> .



Absolutely correct on that.  Either side can do that.

Immie


----------



## American_Jihad

numan said:


> Knowing the way modern governments operate, these could just as easily be _agents provocateurs_ employed to discredit the people who are demonstrating.
> .


----------



## JimBowie1958

editec said:


> Who ARE these liberals?
> 
> That truly depends on your own point of view, doesn't it?
> 
> Some people here, for example, think Obama is a liberal.
> 
> Why? I have no idea, since his record indicates that he is neither fish nor fowl.
> 
> Some people here, for example, thought BUSH II was a conservative
> 
> He was, likewise, in my opinion, neither a conservative nor a liberal, as I define those terms.
> 
> So we can debate this issue forever as long as we all have our own particular definitions of terms, and can never come to an agreement about their meanings.
> 
> *Semantic differences *is really what drives MOST debates here.



I know what both Bush and Obama are: Wall Street lap dogs.


----------



## SAYIT

numan said:


> Knowing the way modern governments operate, these could just as easily be _agents provocateurs_ employed to discredit the people who are demonstrating.



Yeah, and the moon could be made of Swiss Cheese. Adults understand the diff between possibility and probability and there are plenty of rabid ideologues ready, willing and able to act on their beliefs.


----------



## SAYIT

numan said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does *'a nation of laws'* _really_ have to mean *'a nation of lawyers?'*
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, under the tyranny of an irrational, archaic, out-moded Constitution, that is exactly what it does mean !!
> 
> *You'd better watch out, you'd better not cry,
> You'd better not pout, I'm telling you why,
> The FBI is coming to town !
> 
> They know when you are sleeping,
> They know when you're awake,
> They know if you've been bad or good,
> So be good for goodness' sake !!*.
Click to expand...


Thanks to that constitution you have the right to get off your duff and move some where you prefer. Since you feel tyranized by our constitution why not exercize that right, Princess? 
I'll even help you pack.


----------



## American_Jihad

SAYIT said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does *'a nation of laws'* _really_ have to mean *'a nation of lawyers?'*
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, under the tyranny of an irrational, archaic, out-moded Constitution, that is exactly what it does mean !!
> 
> *You'd better watch out, you'd better not cry,
> You'd better not pout, I'm telling you why,
> The FBI is coming to town !
> 
> They know when you are sleeping,
> They know when you're awake,
> They know if you've been bad or good,
> So be good for goodness' sake !!*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks to that constitution you have the right to get off your duff and *move some where you prefer*. Since you feel tyranized by our constitution why not exercize that right, Princess?
> I'll even help you pack.
Click to expand...


We can all chip in and get "it" a ticket to N Korea...


----------



## American_Jihad

*The Lefts War on Fathers Day*

June 7, 2013 By Larry Elder

...

Studies back up the link between the explosive growth in government welfare  begun in the 60s  and the increase of out-of-wedlock births.

In 1960, 5 percent of Americas children entered the world without a mother and father married to each other. By 1980 it was 18 percent, and by 2000 it had risen to 33 percent. Today, the number is 41 percent. For blacks, out-of-wedlock births have gone from 25 percent in 1965 to 73 percent today. The ethnic group with the next-highest percent of births to unmarried mothers is that of Native Americans, at 66 percent. For whites, out-of-wedlock births stand at 29 percent. For Hispanics, out-of-wedlock births are at 53 percent.

In every state, a woman with two children makes more money on welfare than were she to take a minimum wage job. The array of federal and state programs amounts to over $60K spent for every poor household. But because of costs, the recipient household ends up getting far less.

How do we know that the welfare state creates disincentives that hurt the people we are trying to help? They tell us. In 1985, the Los Angeles Times asked whether poor women often have children to get additional benefits. Most of the non-poor respondents said no. When the same question was asked of the poor, however, 64 percent said yes.

People, of course, need help. A humane society does not ignore those who cannot or even will not fend for themselves. But good faith does not substitute for sound policy. The welfare state is an assault on families.

The Left?s War on Father?s Day | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## numan

American_Jihad said:


> In 1960, 5 percent of Americas children entered the world without a mother and father married to each other. By 1980 it was 18 percent, and by 2000 it had risen to 33 percent. Today, the number is 41 percent.


You poor, naive ideologue -- both the government and monopoly capitalism pursue a conscious policy to break up the traditional family.

First, they want everybody to be working and exploited by Big Money -- of course, for as low wages as practicable. Having women at home raising children runs counter to their exploitation for corporate profit, so naturally the single-parent agenda has been pursued for decades, aided by the spiffiest, most up-to-date brainwashing techniques.

Apart from the goal of maximum utilization of human production units, destroying the family serves the essential purpose making these human units as weak, defenceless and controllable as possible. The ideal of the modern state and economic apparatus is to deprive their human cattle of as much mutual support as possible -- that means destroying family, friendships, and all other communities. This ideal is exemplified by the traditional Chinese phrase, "a plate of loose sand" -- meaning people deprived of all mutual support and cohesion.

In accordance with George Orwell's principle of New Speak double-talk, the propaganda apparatus of our rulers constantly trumpets the word "community" -- which is the code word for its exact opposite. If you are still so bamboozled by your brainwashed conditioning that you cannot accept what I am writing, undertake an experiment. Wherever in the mass media you find the word "community", and especially where it is most strongly proclaimed, look closely at what is being pushed into your consciousness. You will invariably find that the ultimate goal is to destroy community.
.


----------



## squeeze berry

^


----------



## Pete7469

a bed wetting liberal said:


> Heeey, PeterEater is back.
> 
> How you doing you fucking disgusting cum gargling faggot?
> 
> Naw..no swallow for you.
> 
> You move on to bowery bums yet?
> 
> They need your attention.



Is there anything to like about these assholes?


----------



## HUGGY

numan said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1960, 5 percent of Americas children entered the world without a mother and father married to each other. By 1980 it was 18 percent, and by 2000 it had risen to 33 percent. Today, the number is 41 percent.
> 
> 
> 
> You poor, naive ideologue -- both the government and monopoly capitalism pursue a conscious policy to break up the traditional family.
> 
> First, they want everybody to be working and exploited by Big Money -- of course, for as low wages as practicable. Having women at home raising children runs counter to their exploitation for corporate profit, so naturally the single-parent agenda has been pursued for decades, aided by the spiffiest, most up-to-date brainwashing techniques.
> 
> Apart from the goal of maximum utilization of human production units, destroying the family serves the essential purpose making these human units as weak, defenceless and controllable as possible. The ideal of the modern state and economic apparatus is to deprive their human cattle of as much mutual support as possible -- that means destroying family, friendships, and all other communities. This ideal is exemplified by the traditional Chinese phrase, "a plate of loose sand" -- meaning people deprived of all mutual support and cohesion.
> 
> In accordance with George Orwell's principle of New Speak double-talk, the propaganda apparatus of our rulers constantly trumpets the word "community" -- which is the code word for its exact opposite. If you are still so bamboozled by your brainwashed conditioning that you cannot accept what I am writing, undertake an experiment. Wherever in in the mass media you find the word "community", and especially where it is most strongly proclaimed, look closely at what is being pushed into your consciousness. You will invariably find that the ultimate goal is to destroy community.
Click to expand...


Walmart is now advertising that 60% of Americans buy products in thier stores at least once a month.  They are bragging about it.  This is commerce that used to go to local mom and pop stores and American manufacturers that provided good incomes that bought houses..cars and sent kids to college in your own communities.  Now that money is being sent to China.  Congratulations to those of you that believe saving a few pennies on the dollar at Walmart is worth helping to destroy your local economy.  Atta boy!  Good job!

God would have it no other way!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

ObamaPhone: Do you fear me now?


----------



## tinydancer

There are no liberals as I know them anymore.


----------



## francoHFW

Liberals haven't changed a bit, it's your brainwashed little RW brains that have....change the channel.


----------



## American_Jihad

francoHFW said:


> Liberals haven't changed a bit, it's your brainwashed little RW brains that have....change the channel.



What do you know, you're a dupe the only thing you know is salunsky's rule # 5, go smoke another 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 load...


----------



## American_Jihad

*The Progressive Lynch Mob Claims Another Victim*​
June 26, 2013 
By David Horowitz and John Perazzo


Celebrity chef Paula Deen is a Georgia-based restaurateur, a self-made woman and national celebrity who has published fourteen cookbooks and hosted popular TV cooking shows on the Food Network for more than a decade. Known for her gregarious personality and folksy southern charm, Deen has performed charity work on behalf of poor people and minorities across the United States. She has donated massive quantities of food, money, and time to Second Harvest, an organization that distributes grocery products to the poor. She has given large donations to, and held fundraisers for, Blessings in a Backpacka program that feeds elementary-school children from low-income families. This year she created the Bag Lady Foundation to help women and children in financial need. In each of these cases, a substantial percentage of the beneficiaries of Deens generosity have been African Americans. But thanks to a malicious law-suit, Deens irrepressible candor, and a nation-wide vilification campaign conducted by a civil rights lynch mob, she has been tarred and feathered as a racist. As a result, she is out of a job and out of pocket many millions of dollars in business revenues lost.

The campaign against Deen was triggered by a couple of answers she inadvisedly volunteered during a private deposition last month. The deposition was part of a $1.2 million discrimination/sexual-harassment lawsuit filed against her by a disgruntled former employee named Lisa Jackson. Jackson, a white woman, had managed a Savannah seafood restaurant owned by Deen and her brother. According to Jackson, the working environment at the restaurant was permeated by sexual innuendos and racial slurs. During her deposition, Paula Deen was asked by Jacksons attorney if she herself had ever used the N-word. A person sensitive to the toxic environment civil rights vigilantes have created for white Americansand particularly southernerswould have said No, particularly since Deen had never used the word in the course of her business. But Paula Deen is a transparently decent person, dangerously innocent of the racial mine fields into which the suit had transported her.

Instead of No, or I dont recall ever having used that word, she replied, Yes, of course. She then explained that it happened a very long time ago. When asked for details, she said she had used the word in 1986 while recounting to her husband how she had been held up earlier that day by a black gunman at the bank where she was employed. In other words, she used the word in a private conversation with her husband twenty-seven years ago. She also admitted to telling or tolerating off-colored jokes of the kind that we have all told. (Indeed, TV comedians like Lisa Lampanelli have made racial humor their stock-in-trade, as have black comedians since Richard Pryor  but the butts of their jokes are white.) But, Deen added, thats just not a word that we use as time has gone on. Things have changed since the 60s in the South. And my children and my brother object to that word being used in any cruel or mean behavior. As well as I do. If Paula Deen is a racist, every white, black, brown and yellow person in America is a racist too.

...

Ultimately, it wasnt an Al Sharpton or a Jesse Jackson who destroyed the public career of Paula Deen. It was the lynch mob that the civil rights movement has become and that has turned its values upside down. These are manifest in the orgies of venomous self-righteousness that rise to the surface every time an opportunity presents itself to dramatize a problem that was effectively put to rest a generation ago. Yes, there are racists among us and no doubt always will be. But they are not simply white, and they do not limit their poisonous words to private conversations with their husbands in closeted circumstances twenty-seven years in the past.

The Progressive Lynch Mob Claims Another Victim | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## Avatar4321

That's a really bad picture of Paula. She will be able to recoup.


----------



## American_Jihad

Avatar4321 said:


> That's a really bad picture of Paula. She will be able to recoup.



Fixed...


----------



## Cowman

A couple sticks of butter will make it better.


----------



## rdean

Right wingers hate so many.  It's really hard to keep track.


----------



## American_Jihad

rdean said:


> Right wingers hate so many.  It's really hard to keep track.



I can see why nobody loves you, 33,500 posts and no reputation, hell cowshit has more rep than you, must be the chibongo way ah...



...2 4 1


----------



## TemplarKormac

The OP wants an honest answer? Okay,

Liberals are narcissistic, arrogant, and foolhardy.  They see prosperity as a means of inequality, but they themselves have never tried it. They have the notion that they always know best, and use specious reasoning to justify government involvement in every aspect of our lives. They are racist, intolerant and misogynistic, in spite of claiming otherwise. They are rank hypocrites. Instead of arguing a point with facts, they try to will their way to a point. If they fail to beat you in an argument, the standard pejorative "racist" is hurled in your direction.

Why do I hate liberals? They are childish. (Not all of them, mind you.) plain and simple.


----------



## Avatar4321

American_Jihad said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a really bad picture of Paula. She will be able to recoup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed...
Click to expand...


I m not sure that's much better lol


----------



## Avatar4321

rdean said:


> Right wingers hate so many.  It's really hard to keep track.



Not really. Ill give you the list of people I hate:








Sums it up.

I don't even hate you. I pity you. But I don't hate you.


----------



## Avatar4321

TemplarKormac said:


> The OP wants an honest answer? Okay,
> 
> Liberals are narcissistic, arrogant, and foolhardy.  They see prosperity as a means of inequality, but they themselves have never tried it. They have the notion that they always know best, and use specious reasoning to justify government involvement in every aspect of our lives. They are racist, intolerant and misogynistic, in spite of claiming otherwise. They are rank hypocrites. Instead of arguing a point with facts, they try to will their way to a point. If they fail to beat you in an argument, the standard pejorative "racist" is hurled in your direction.
> 
> Why do I hate liberals? They are childish. (Not all of them, mind you.) plain and simple.



There are way too many conservatives who are just as narcissistic, arrogant, and foolhardy.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Because in order for them to conceal their utter contempt for the Constitution and the Rule of Law, they say that the Constitution is a "Living and Breathing document," that the founding fathers "could not have envisioned xyz."

No, the founding fathers and the STATES that RATIFIED, could not have envisioned XYZ, that's why they wrote Article V, which prescribes how the Constitution is to be AMENDED, upon Consent of 3/4 of the STATES.

It doesn't say that Congress or the SCOTUS or the President have the power to change the Constitution.

If you feel the Constitution is "behind the times" then fucking amend it. There are plenty of good laws on the books that are not constitutional, but I would be perfectly willing to amend the constitution to allow for them.

*Also notice that 99% of your Libtard agenda couldn't be enforced without a para-military police force in every town and city. IDEAS SO GOOD THEY'RE MANDATORY AT GUN POINT!*


----------



## zeke

American_Jihad said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right wingers hate so many.  It's really hard to keep track.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why nobody loves you, 33,500 posts and no reputation, hell cowshit has more rep than you, must be the chibongo way ah...
> 
> 
> 
> ...2 4 1
Click to expand...


And here you have the real difference between right and left posting on here.

The right wing whack jobs think that the pos rep MEANS something. The right wing whack job will post something truly stupid and the other right wingers flock to that post to give thanks and rep. (almost like an act of worshilp). Acting just like it means something. They even threaten to give neg reps. Like it means something. Hell they ain't even smart enough to turn the rep off.

The left side wack jobs are a little more subdued. Thank god for left wingers. They are the only ones you can have a conversation with.

The right wingers are good and happy only if they can shoot "it", pollute "it" or tell YOU what to do with "it". Whatever it is.


----------



## editec

The2ndAmendment said:


> Because in order for them to conceal their utter contempt for the Constitution and the Rule of Law, they say that the Constitution is a "Living and Breathing document," that the founding fathers "could not have envisioned xyz."
> 
> No, the founding fathers and the STATES that RATIFIED, could not have envisioned XYZ, that's why they wrote Article V, which prescribes how the Constitution is to be AMENDED, upon Consent of 3/4 of the STATES.
> 
> It doesn't say that Congress or the SCOTUS or the President have the power to change the Constitution.
> 
> If you feel the Constitution is "behind the times" then fucking amend it. There are plenty of good laws on the books that are not constitutional, but I would be perfectly willing to amend the constitution to allow for them.
> 
> *Also notice that 99% of your Libtard agenda couldn't be enforced without a para-military police force in every town and city. IDEAS SO GOOD THEY'RE MANDATORY AT GUN POINT!*



Are you familiar with this clause in the Consitution, Lad?



> The Congress shall have Power - _To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof._



Its not called the ELASTIC CLAUSE for nothing


----------



## The2ndAmendment

editec said:


> The Congress shall have Power - _To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not called the ELASTIC CLAUSE for nothing
Click to expand...


What would be the point of enumerating federal powers, if that clause was elastic, granting the Federal Government any power it wishes?

What would be the point of the 9th and 10th Amendments (which were ratified AFTER that original Constitution), if the "elastic clause" trumped then whenever the federal government wanted to?

"Elastic Clause" is a term invented by libtards.

The Necessary and Proper clause gives Congress the power to make Laws to carry out their ENUMERATED (foregoing) powers, and any other power vested WITHIN the Constitution (not OUTSIDE the constitution) in either Article I, II, III, IV, V, VI or the *amendments*.

For instance, if the federal government wants to use its ENUMERATED power to build a fort, it has the right to pass a law purchasing lumber. Purchasing lumber is a necessary and proper task for completing a fort.

"Elastic Clause Card failed; must try Supremacy Clause Card."

As understood by the founders and the STATES that ratified the Constitution in their ratification documents (you can read any of them online), this was the accepted interpretation upon ratification:



> The "necessary and proper" clause requires a right fit between means and ends. Besides being a proper end, the end must also be necessary (in the plainest sense of the word), in terms of the stated purpose of government ("to secure theBlessings of Liberty"). The ends must be necessary, and if they are, the means may be proper or improper. The means may violate the principles of federalism and the separation of powers, the enumerated powers or may violate natural rights. All laws enacted by congress must be necessary to secure liberty, aimed at goals consistent with the enumerated powers, preserving federalism and the separation of powers and protect natural rights.



The "end" must be both constitutional and necessary; not unconstitutional and feckless.

The "means" to accomplish this end, must not usurp any power of the states. Buying bundles of lumber wouldn't usurp anyone State's power.

You have now proven the title of the OP: Why does everyone hate liberals?


----------



## Skull Pilot

rdean said:


> Right wingers hate so many.  It's really hard to keep track.



Modern "liberals" hate liberty and are all about control.


----------



## Wolfsister77

TemplarKormac said:


> The OP wants an honest answer? Okay,
> 
> Liberals are narcissistic, arrogant, and foolhardy.  They see prosperity as a means of inequality, but they themselves have never tried it. They have the notion that they always know best, and use specious reasoning to justify government involvement in every aspect of our lives. They are racist, intolerant and misogynistic, in spite of claiming otherwise. They are rank hypocrites. Instead of arguing a point with facts, they try to will their way to a point. If they fail to beat you in an argument, the standard pejorative "racist" is hurled in your direction.
> 
> Why do I hate liberals? They are childish. (Not all of them, mind you.) plain and simple.



You just described many Conservatives as well.


----------



## thanatos144

So lets talk about hypocrisy of progressives shall we???? Paula Deen said ****** once 27 years ago and gets fired.....Robert Bryd Was in the KKK and wanted to hang black people but they made him a senator till he went to hell ...... Can you see  it?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Avatar4321 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP wants an honest answer? Okay,
> 
> Liberals are narcissistic, arrogant, and foolhardy.  They see prosperity as a means of inequality, but they themselves have never tried it. They have the notion that they always know best, and use specious reasoning to justify government involvement in every aspect of our lives. They are racist, intolerant and misogynistic, in spite of claiming otherwise. They are rank hypocrites. Instead of arguing a point with facts, they try to will their way to a point. If they fail to beat you in an argument, the standard pejorative "racist" is hurled in your direction.
> 
> Why do I hate liberals? They are childish. (Not all of them, mind you.) plain and simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are way too many conservatives who are just as narcissistic, arrogant, and foolhardy.
Click to expand...


He wanted my view in all honesty so I gave it to him. I could just as easily ask him why he hates conservatives, he could have phrased the question differently, too. This thread was easily designed to start a fight between the two sides. Frankly stirring the pot to me is overtly childish.


----------



## thanatos144

TemplarKormac said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP wants an honest answer? Okay,
> 
> Liberals are narcissistic, arrogant, and foolhardy.  They see prosperity as a means of inequality, but they themselves have never tried it. They have the notion that they always know best, and use specious reasoning to justify government involvement in every aspect of our lives. They are racist, intolerant and misogynistic, in spite of claiming otherwise. They are rank hypocrites. Instead of arguing a point with facts, they try to will their way to a point. If they fail to beat you in an argument, the standard pejorative "racist" is hurled in your direction.
> 
> Why do I hate liberals? They are childish. (Not all of them, mind you.) plain and simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are way too many conservatives who are just as narcissistic, arrogant, and foolhardy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wanted my view in all honesty so I gave it to him. I could just as easily ask him why he hates conservatives, he could have phrased the question differently, too. This thread was easily designed to start a fight between the two sides. Frankly stirring the pot to me is overtly childish.
Click to expand...

And ignoring the differences is mature?


----------



## JoeNormal

numan said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1960, 5 percent of Americas children entered the world without a mother and father married to each other. By 1980 it was 18 percent, and by 2000 it had risen to 33 percent. Today, the number is 41 percent.
> 
> 
> 
> You poor, naive ideologue -- both the government and monopoly capitalism pursue a conscious policy to break up the traditional family.
> 
> First, they want everybody to be working and exploited by Big Money -- of course, for as low wages as practicable. Having women at home raising children runs counter to their exploitation for corporate profit, so naturally the single-parent agenda has been pursued for decades, aided by the spiffiest, most up-to-date brainwashing techniques.
> 
> Apart from the goal of maximum utilization of human production units, destroying the family serves the essential purpose making these human units as weak, defenceless and controllable as possible. The ideal of the modern state and economic apparatus is to deprive their human cattle of as much mutual support as possible -- that means destroying family, friendships, and all other communities. This ideal is exemplified by the traditional Chinese phrase, "a plate of loose sand" -- meaning people deprived of all mutual support and cohesion.
> 
> In accordance with George Orwell's principle of New Speak double-talk, the propaganda apparatus of our rulers constantly trumpets the word "community" -- which is the code word for its exact opposite. If you are still so bamboozled by your brainwashed conditioning that you cannot accept what I am writing, undertake an experiment. Wherever in the mass media you find the word "community", and especially where it is most strongly proclaimed, look closely at what is being pushed into your consciousness. You will invariably find that the ultimate goal is to destroy community.
> .
Click to expand...


Well said and very true.  I would add to this, a 'busyness ethic' that keeps people so occupied with day to day tasks that they have no time to look around to see what's really going on or to work towards a real change.


----------



## AVG-JOE

The2ndAmendment said:


> Because in order for them to conceal their utter contempt for the Constitution and the Rule of Law, they say that the Constitution is a "Living and Breathing document," that the founding fathers "could not have envisioned xyz."
> 
> No, the founding fathers and the STATES that RATIFIED, could not have envisioned XYZ, that's why they wrote Article V, which prescribes how the Constitution is to be AMENDED, upon Consent of 3/4 of the STATES.
> 
> It doesn't say that Congress or the SCOTUS or the President have the power to change the Constitution.
> 
> If you feel the Constitution is "behind the times" then fucking amend it.
> *There are plenty of good laws on the books that are not constitutional*, but I would be perfectly willing to amend the constitution to allow for them.
> 
> *Also notice that 99% of your Libtard agenda couldn't be enforced without a para-military police force in every town and city. IDEAS SO GOOD THEY'RE MANDATORY AT GUN POINT!*


----------



## sitarro

Care4all said:


> People who can't take responsibility for their own actions generally find someone else to blame, and hate who they've decided to peg, to make themselves feel better, I suppose?



What a perfect description of the current administration and the imbeciles that populate it, especially the dimwit in chief.


----------



## Unkotare

thanatos144 said:


> So lets talk about hypocrisy of progressives shall we???? Paula Deen said ****** once 27 years ago and gets fired.....Robert Bryd Was in the KKK and wanted to hang black people but they made him a senator till he went to hell ...... Can you see  it?





But did he use too much butter in the Senate? That seems to be the thing that really pisses people off.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

AVG-JOE said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because in order for them to conceal their utter contempt for the Constitution and the Rule of Law, they say that the Constitution is a "Living and Breathing document," that the founding fathers "could not have envisioned xyz."
> 
> No, the founding fathers and the STATES that RATIFIED, could not have envisioned XYZ, that's why they wrote Article V, which prescribes how the Constitution is to be AMENDED, upon Consent of 3/4 of the STATES.
> 
> It doesn't say that Congress or the SCOTUS or the President have the power to change the Constitution.
> 
> If you feel the Constitution is "behind the times" then fucking amend it.
> *There are plenty of good laws on the books that are not constitutional*, but I would be perfectly willing to amend the constitution to allow for them.
> 
> *Also notice that 99% of your Libtard agenda couldn't be enforced without a para-military police force in every town and city. IDEAS SO GOOD THEY'RE MANDATORY AT GUN POINT!*
Click to expand...


What confuses you here?

The federal government has never been granted the power to obtain warrants to electronic communications in the Fourth Amendment. 

I am a strict constructionist. The Constitution must be amended, in an orderly manner, upon the Consent and ratification of the States, before any GOOD law can be enacted that operats outside of the current Constitution.

This is how it should work, instead we have despot judges amending the Constitution anyway they please, although sometimes (rarely) for good reasons. That's the Rule of the Jungle.

My method is the Rule of Law.


----------



## numan

The2ndAmendment said:


> The federal government has never been granted the power to obtain warrants to electronic communications in the Fourth Amendment.
> 
> I am a strict constructionist. The Constitution must be amended, in an orderly manner, upon the Consent and ratification of the States, before any GOOD law can be enacted that operats outside of the current Constitution.
> 
> This is how it should work, instead we have despot judges amending the Constitution anyway they please, although sometimes (rarely) for good reasons. That's the Rule of the Jungle.
> 
> My method is the Rule of Law.


You are living in a Dream World.

The simplest way to destroy America's defective Constitution is to get many judges on the bench who support tyranny and the rule of the wealthy  and well-connected. These judges know what side their bread is buttered on.

This is what Hitler did -- almost first thing -- get his own guys appointed as judges. Then he could do what he liked -- and it always would be legal.

You are already living in a jungle.

The Constitution is dead -- and it is not coming back.

Get used to it.
.


----------



## Unkotare

numan said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government has never been granted the power to obtain warrants to electronic communications in the Fourth Amendment.
> 
> I am a strict constructionist. The Constitution must be amended, in an orderly manner, upon the Consent and ratification of the States, before any GOOD law can be enacted that operats outside of the current Constitution.
> 
> This is how it should work, instead we have despot judges amending the Constitution anyway they please, although sometimes (rarely) for good reasons. That's the Rule of the Jungle.
> 
> My method is the Rule of Law.
> 
> 
> 
> You are living in a Dream World.
> 
> The simplest way to destroy America's defective Constitution is to get many judges on the bench who support tyranny and the rule of the wealthy  and well-connected. These judges know what side their bread is buttered on.
> 
> This is what Hitler did -- almost first thing -- get his own guys appointed as judges. Then he could do what he liked -- and it always would be legal.
> 
> You are already living in a jungle.
> 
> The Constitution is dead -- and it is not coming back.
> 
> Get used to it.
> .
Click to expand...



What country do you live in, loser?


----------



## thanatos144

Unkotare said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So lets talk about hypocrisy of progressives shall we???? Paula Deen said ****** once 27 years ago and gets fired.....Robert Bryd Was in the KKK and wanted to hang black people but they made him a senator till he went to hell ...... Can you see  it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But did he use too much butter in the Senate? That seems to be the thing that really pisses people off.
Click to expand...


Just disgusting the double standard. Deen is a victim of racism

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So lets talk about hypocrisy of progressives shall we???? Paula Deen said ****** once 27 years ago and gets fired.....Robert Bryd Was in the KKK and wanted to hang black people but they made him a senator till he went to hell ...... Can you see  it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But did he use too much butter in the Senate? That seems to be the thing that really pisses people off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just disgusting the double standard. Deen is a victim of racism
> 
> Welcome to my nightmare
Click to expand...


What happened to Deen has nothing to do with 'liberals'. Your blame is totally misplaced.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> But did he use too much butter in the Senate? That seems to be the thing that really pisses people off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just disgusting the double standard. Deen is a victim of racism
> 
> Welcome to my nightmare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened to Deen has nothing to do with 'liberals'. Your blame is totally misplaced.
Click to expand...

Really? You dont think show producers and execs are not progressives??? LMAO


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just disgusting the double standard. Deen is a victim of racism
> 
> Welcome to my nightmare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to Deen has nothing to do with 'liberals'. Your blame is totally misplaced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? You dont think show producers and execs are not progressives??? LMAO
Click to expand...


Hey turd brain, SPONSORS drive that business, corporate SPONSORS have deemed Deen radioactive. It has NOTHING to do with show producers and execs.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to Deen has nothing to do with 'liberals'. Your blame is totally misplaced.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You dont think show producers and execs are not progressives??? LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey turd brain, SPONSORS drive that business, corporate SPONSORS have deemed Deen radioactive. It has NOTHING to do with show producers and execs.
Click to expand...


Sponsors didnt bail. By the way which progressive asshat thought court records were a good thing to publish and ruin a life?


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You dont think show producers and execs are not progressives??? LMAO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey turd brain, SPONSORS drive that business, corporate SPONSORS have deemed Deen radioactive. It has NOTHING to do with show producers and execs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sponsors didnt bail. *By the way which progressive asshat thought court records were a good thing to publish and ruin a life?
Click to expand...


Either you are a liar or an idiot...which one is it?

Paula Deen Dropped By Smithfield Foods

QVC taking 'a pause' on Paula Deen, while three other companies bail

Paula Deen Fired by Target, Home Depot and More

Paula Deen dropped by Walmart


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey turd brain, SPONSORS drive that business, corporate SPONSORS have deemed Deen radioactive. It has NOTHING to do with show producers and execs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sponsors didnt bail. *By the way which progressive asshat thought court records were a good thing to publish and ruin a life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you are a liar or an idiot...which one is it?
> 
> Paula Deen Dropped By Smithfield Foods
> 
> QVC taking 'a pause' on Paula Deen, while three other companies bail
> 
> Paula Deen Fired by Target, Home Depot and More
> 
> Paula Deen dropped by Walmart
Click to expand...


This all occurred AFTER the progressives shit storm.


----------



## Pete7469

It's funny to me that this thread continues to pop up.

It's like reasons to hate bed wetters will never run out...


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sponsors didnt bail. *By the way which progressive asshat thought court records were a good thing to publish and ruin a life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either you are a liar or an idiot...which one is it?
> 
> Paula Deen Dropped By Smithfield Foods
> 
> QVC taking 'a pause' on Paula Deen, while three other companies bail
> 
> Paula Deen Fired by Target, Home Depot and More
> 
> Paula Deen dropped by Walmart
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This all occurred AFTER the progressives shit storm.
Click to expand...


You SAID: *Sponsors didnt bail. *

NOW, you are whining, making excuses and trying to remove Paula Deen from PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Are you saying the media should not have reported this story? Is this Russia??


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either you are a liar or an idiot...which one is it?
> 
> Paula Deen Dropped By Smithfield Foods
> 
> QVC taking 'a pause' on Paula Deen, while three other companies bail
> 
> Paula Deen Fired by Target, Home Depot and More
> 
> Paula Deen dropped by Walmart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This all occurred AFTER the progressives shit storm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You SAID: *Sponsors didnt bail. *
> 
> NOW, you are whining, making excuses and trying to remove Paula Deen from PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
> 
> Are you saying the media should not have reported this story? Is this Russia??
Click to expand...


Really your point is semantics about time? They bailed because of the progressive machine trying to destroy her life

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## numan

thanatos144 said:


> *Socialism is a cancer*


And cancer is the unrestrained "free enterprise" of a few insanely greedy cells of the body, determined to absorb as much of the resources of the body as they can -- even if they destroy the body, and themselves, in the process.
.


----------



## Moonglow

much ado about nothing


----------



## mmmjvpssm

Avatar4321 said:


> I don't hate liberals. BTW they are progressives. They just stole the liberal moniker when people realized how nuts progressives were.
> 
> I just want them to stop taking my money and interfering in my life. That's all.



So we call ourselves liberals because we're ashamed to use the title progressive?? You know we do have memories and we can remember and I and I'm sure others remember a time when cons used to claim that we called ourselves progressives because we were ashamed to use the title liberal. So no matter what we call ourselves you'll make the exact same claim


----------



## Dragonlady

mmmjvpssm said:


> I just want them to stop taking my money and interfering in my life. That's all.



I love how conservatives think that all of the money in their pay packets belongs to them because they "earned" it.

Did you attend a public school to get any part of your education?  Did you drive on a public road to get to work?  Do you live in an area with electricity, water, cable, telephones?  Do you have children attending public schools?  Do you use the services of doctors, lawyers, teachers, accountants or other professionals?  Would you rather test all consumer items for their safety and effectiveness yourself, including food and drugs on the marketplace, and the car your drove to work in?

If the anser to any of these questions, except the last one, is yes.  You owe the country a portion of your pay to cover your share of the costs of all of these programs.  If you want to self-test everything you use, good luck with that.

It has been said that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives are always positive that they are right, and liberals are never completely sure of anything.  

As a liberal, I am pretty sure that conservative economic policies only benefit the wealthy and are responsible for 2 Great Depressions in the past 100 years.  But true to form, cons continue to think that conservative policies are correct and liberal economic policies are the cause of all of their troubles.


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either you are a liar or an idiot...which one is it?
> 
> Paula Deen Dropped By Smithfield Foods
> 
> QVC taking 'a pause' on Paula Deen, while three other companies bail
> 
> Paula Deen Fired by Target, Home Depot and More
> 
> Paula Deen dropped by Walmart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This all occurred AFTER the progressives shit storm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You SAID: *Sponsors didnt bail. *
> 
> NOW, you are whining, making excuses and trying to remove Paula Deen from PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
> 
> Are you saying the media should not have reported this story? Is this Russia??
Click to expand...


I will say it.  The offense happened 27 years ago.  And supposedly it has not happened since.  You are doggone right they should not have reported it!  I despise the word, but I cannot say that in my young and stupid days, I never used it.  This is PC hypocrisy at its worst.  It is nothing more than a hit piece.

I would not be surprised to find out that if you questioned the progressive moron that broke the story and could somehow get an honest response, you would find he/she has used it in the last 27 years numerous times.

Immie


----------



## OODA_Loop

Dragonlady said:


> Did you attend a public school to get any part of your education?  Did you drive on a public road to get to work?



Big difference in taxes for infrastructure and taxes for entitlement.

Stop wanton entitlement.  Focus on infrastructure.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Dragonlady said:


> mmmjvpssm said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just want them to stop taking my money and interfering in my life. That's all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love how conservatives think that all of the money in their pay packets belongs to them because they "earned" it.
> 
> Did you attend a public school to get any part of your education?  Did you drive on a public road to get to work?  Do you live in an area with electricity, water, cable, telephones?  Do you have children attending public schools?  Do you use the services of doctors, lawyers, teachers, accountants or other professionals?  Would you rather test all consumer items for their safety and effectiveness yourself, including food and drugs on the marketplace, and the car your drove to work in?
> 
> If the anser to any of these questions, except the last one, is yes.  You owe the country a portion of your pay to cover your share of the costs of all of these programs.  If you want to self-test everything you use, good luck with that.
> 
> It has been said that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives are always positive that they are right, and liberals are never completely sure of anything.
> 
> As a liberal, I am pretty sure that conservative economic policies only benefit the wealthy and are responsible for 2 Great Depressions in the past 100 years.  But true to form, cons continue to think that conservative policies are correct and liberal economic policies are the cause of all of their troubles.
Click to expand...


Public ed. is funded mainly through property taxes and we all pay gasoline, excise taxes and tolls that are supposed to pay for roads

So what's your point?

FYI an estimated 60 billion a year is collected in federal gas taxes alone so tell me why are our roads in such bad shape?

The answer is the malfeasance of our politicians so the solution is not more taxes but less malfeasance.


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This all occurred AFTER the progressives shit storm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You SAID: *Sponsors didnt bail. *
> 
> NOW, you are whining, making excuses and trying to remove Paula Deen from PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
> 
> Are you saying the media should not have reported this story? Is this Russia??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will say it.  The offense happened 27 years ago.  And supposedly it has not happened since.  You are doggone right they should not have reported it!  I despise the word, but I cannot say that in my young and stupid days, I never used it.  This is PC hypocrisy at its worst.  It is nothing more than a hit piece.
> 
> I would not be surprised to find out that if you questioned the progressive moron that broke the story and could somehow get an honest response, you would find he/she has used it in the last 27 years numerous times.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


The ONLY ones who have a problem with her comments are SPONSORS. Deen was sued in a public court. If she was concerned about what damage would come out in the lawsuit, she could have settled out of court. Once it goes to the public court system, it becomes public domain. Unless a judge intervenes with a gag order.

THAT is how America works. You can't say you believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press and liberty, and THEN want America to become Russia.


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You SAID: *Sponsors didnt bail. *
> 
> NOW, you are whining, making excuses and trying to remove Paula Deen from PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
> 
> Are you saying the media should not have reported this story? Is this Russia??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will say it.  The offense happened 27 years ago.  And supposedly it has not happened since.  You are doggone right they should not have reported it!  I despise the word, but I cannot say that in my young and stupid days, I never used it.  This is PC hypocrisy at its worst.  It is nothing more than a hit piece.
> 
> I would not be surprised to find out that if you questioned the progressive moron that broke the story and could somehow get an honest response, you would find he/she has used it in the last 27 years numerous times.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ONLY ones who have a problem with her comments are SPONSORS. Deen was sued in a public court. If she was concerned about what damage would come out in the lawsuit, she could have settled out of court. Once it goes to the public court system, it becomes public domain. Unless a judge intervenes with a gag order.
> 
> THAT is how America works. You can't say you believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press and liberty, and THEN want America to become Russia.
Click to expand...


I never said they could not print it, just that they should not have  There is a difference between being legally allowed to  report on something and morally or ethically able to print it.  This was not news, it was a frigging hit job... character assassination at its worst.

It is "reporting" such as this that has brought journalism down below the level of professional hit men.  Hell even below the level of lobbyists and career politicians.

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will say it.  The offense happened 27 years ago.  And supposedly it has not happened since.  You are doggone right they should not have reported it!  I despise the word, but I cannot say that in my young and stupid days, I never used it.  This is PC hypocrisy at its worst.  It is nothing more than a hit piece.
> 
> I would not be surprised to find out that if you questioned the progressive moron that broke the story and could somehow get an honest response, you would find he/she has used it in the last 27 years numerous times.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY ones who have a problem with her comments are SPONSORS. Deen was sued in a public court. If she was concerned about what damage would come out in the lawsuit, she could have settled out of court. Once it goes to the public court system, it becomes public domain. Unless a judge intervenes with a gag order.
> 
> THAT is how America works. You can't say you believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press and liberty, and THEN want America to become Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said they could not print it, just that they should not have  There is a difference between being legally allowed to  report on something and morally or ethically able to print it.  This was not news, it was a frigging hit job... character assassination at its worst.
> 
> It is "reporting" such as this that has brought journalism down below the level of professional hit men.  Hell even below the level of lobbyists and career politicians.
> 
> Imminent
Click to expand...


Come on Immie, stuff the partisan bullshit. If Deen was Howard Dean you folks on the right would be calling for public hangings if it was suppressed by the media. 

I was born Immie, it just wasn't yesterday.


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You SAID: *Sponsors didnt bail. *
> 
> NOW, you are whining, making excuses and trying to remove Paula Deen from PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
> 
> Are you saying the media should not have reported this story? Is this Russia??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will say it.  The offense happened 27 years ago.  And supposedly it has not happened since.  You are doggone right they should not have reported it!  I despise the word, but I cannot say that in my young and stupid days, I never used it.  This is PC hypocrisy at its worst.  It is nothing more than a hit piece.
> 
> I would not be surprised to find out that if you questioned the progressive moron that broke the story and could somehow get an honest response, you would find he/she has used it in the last 27 years numerous times.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ONLY ones who have a problem with her comments are SPONSORS. Deen was sued in a public court. If she was concerned about what damage would come out in the lawsuit, she could have settled out of court. Once it goes to the public court system, it becomes public domain. Unless a judge intervenes with a gag order.
> 
> THAT is how America works. You can't say you believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press and liberty, and THEN want America to become Russia.
Click to expand...


To add to my last, your statement that she should have settled out of court is akin to saying that the accused should succumb to extortion and be at the mercy of anyone who wants to file a suit against them.  

That is ridiculous.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY ones who have a problem with her comments are SPONSORS. Deen was sued in a public court. If she was concerned about what damage would come out in the lawsuit, she could have settled out of court. Once it goes to the public court system, it becomes public domain. Unless a judge intervenes with a gag order.
> 
> THAT is how America works. You can't say you believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press and liberty, and THEN want America to become Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they could not print it, just that they should not have  There is a difference between being legally allowed to  report on something and morally or ethically able to print it.  This was not news, it was a frigging hit job... character assassination at its worst.
> 
> It is "reporting" such as this that has brought journalism down below the level of professional hit men.  Hell even below the level of lobbyists and career politicians.
> 
> Imminent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on Immie, stuff the partisan bullshit. If Deen was Howard Dean you folks on the right would be calling for public hangings if it was suppressed by the media.
> 
> I was born Immie, it just wasn't yesterday.
Click to expand...



Bullshit, I despise politicians on the "right" as much as I do those on the left.  They have systematically destroyed this nation regardless of party.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Evidently, even Al Sharpton realizes this was nothing more than character assassination.

Rev. Al Sharpton Speaks Out on Paula Deen's N-Word Controversy: Don't Judge the Celebrity Chef for Her Past | E! Online



> The civil rights activist spoke out about the controversy revolving around the Southern chef and has actually come to her defense, following her admission to using the N-word in a deposition as part of a lawsuit filed by a former employee.
> 
> "A lot of us have in the past said things we have regretted saying years ago,"



If he is not willing to jump into the race-baiting then you know it is low.

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> Evidently, even Al Sharpton realizes this was nothing more than character assassination.
> 
> Rev. Al Sharpton Speaks Out on Paula Deen's N-Word Controversy: Don't Judge the Celebrity Chef for Her Past | E! Online
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The civil rights activist spoke out about the controversy revolving around the Southern chef and has actually come to her defense, following her admission to using the N-word in a deposition as part of a lawsuit filed by a former employee.
> 
> "A lot of us have in the past said things we have regretted saying years ago,"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he is not willing to jump into the race-baiting then you know it is low.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Well, if Rev Al is in her corner, WHY THE FUCK are liberals being blamed for this shit Immie? The only ones who really have a problem with what she said are CORPORATIONS.


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, even Al Sharpton realizes this was nothing more than character assassination.
> 
> Rev. Al Sharpton Speaks Out on Paula Deen's N-Word Controversy: Don't Judge the Celebrity Chef for Her Past | E! Online
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The civil rights activist spoke out about the controversy revolving around the Southern chef and has actually come to her defense, following her admission to using the N-word in a deposition as part of a lawsuit filed by a former employee.
> 
> "A lot of us have in the past said things we have regretted saying years ago,"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he is not willing to jump into the race-baiting then you know it is low.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if Rev Al is in her corner, WHY THE FUCK are liberals being blamed for this shit Immie? The only ones who really have a problem with what she said are CORPORATIONS.
Click to expand...


I did not say anything at all about liberals and if I did, it was a mistake.  I blamed progressives and their force everyone to be politically correct attitudes. Do you not realize that there is a difference between liberals and progressives?  No, maybe you don't because at times it seems you confuse me as a moderate conservative with the religious right/neo-cons.  

I may have at one time agreed with the RR, but that was before I started reading what they stood for and that was several years ago. In fact, mid Bush years.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, even Al Sharpton realizes this was nothing more than character assassination.
> 
> Rev. Al Sharpton Speaks Out on Paula Deen's N-Word Controversy: Don't Judge the Celebrity Chef for Her Past | E! Online
> 
> 
> 
> If he is not willing to jump into the race-baiting then you know it is low.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if Rev Al is in her corner, WHY THE FUCK are liberals being blamed for this shit Immie? The only ones who really have a problem with what she said are CORPORATIONS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say anything at all about liberals and if I did, it was a mistake.  I blamed progressives and their force everyone to be politically correct attitudes. Do you not realize that there is a difference between liberals and progressives?  No, maybe you don't because at times it seems you confuse me as a moderate conservative with the religious right/neo-cons.
> 
> I may have at one time agreed with the RR, but that was before I started reading what they stood for and that was several years ago. In fact, mid Bush years.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


By the way, Sharpton is a racist.  However, I would not put him in the "progressive" camp.

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, even Al Sharpton realizes this was nothing more than character assassination.
> 
> Rev. Al Sharpton Speaks Out on Paula Deen's N-Word Controversy: Don't Judge the Celebrity Chef for Her Past | E! Online
> 
> 
> 
> If he is not willing to jump into the race-baiting then you know it is low.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if Rev Al is in her corner, WHY THE FUCK are liberals being blamed for this shit Immie? The only ones who really have a problem with what she said are CORPORATIONS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say anything at all about liberals and if I did, it was a mistake.  I blamed progressives and their force everyone to be politically correct attitudes. Do you not realize that there is a difference between liberals and progressives?  No, maybe you don't because at times it seems you confuse me as a moderate conservative with the religious right/neo-cons.
> 
> I may have at one time agreed with the RR, but that was before I started reading what they stood for and that was several years ago. In fact, mid Bush years.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I defend progressives as much as liberals. They are the same. This has NOTHING to do with 'political correctness'. And their is no 'force everyone to be politically correct' attitude. That is more bullshit. This about MONEY. The corporate sponsors are exercising their free speech by shutting off their money sponsorship to her ventures.


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if Rev Al is in her corner, WHY THE FUCK are liberals being blamed for this shit Immie? The only ones who really have a problem with what she said are CORPORATIONS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say anything at all about liberals and if I did, it was a mistake.  I blamed progressives and their force everyone to be politically correct attitudes. Do you not realize that there is a difference between liberals and progressives?  No, maybe you don't because at times it seems you confuse me as a moderate conservative with the religious right/neo-cons.
> 
> I may have at one time agreed with the RR, but that was before I started reading what they stood for and that was several years ago. In fact, mid Bush years.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I defend progressives as much as liberals. They are the same. This has NOTHING to do with 'political correctness'. And their is no 'force everyone to be politically correct' attitude. That is more bullshit. This about MONEY. The corporate sponsors are exercising their free speech by shutting off their money sponsorship to her ventures.
Click to expand...


It may very well be about money, but that is because of the arrogance and intolerance of progressives.  Progressives attempt to force everyone to be tolerant, yet they are the most intolerant people on the face of the earth. Corporations realize that progressives will attempt to destroy anyone, everyone and everything that does not succumb to their intolerance.

Yes, there is a huge difference between a liberal and a progressive.  Liberals are decent human beings that believe in helping those in need.  Progressives are the religious right of the left, are extremely intolerant just as the RR and are vindictive as hell.  

Immie


----------



## thanatos144

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say anything at all about liberals and if I did, it was a mistake.  I blamed progressives and their force everyone to be politically correct attitudes. Do you not realize that there is a difference between liberals and progressives?  No, maybe you don't because at times it seems you confuse me as a moderate conservative with the religious right/neo-cons.
> 
> I may have at one time agreed with the RR, but that was before I started reading what they stood for and that was several years ago. In fact, mid Bush years.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I defend progressives as much as liberals. They are the same. This has NOTHING to do with 'political correctness'. And their is no 'force everyone to be politically correct' attitude. That is more bullshit. This about MONEY. The corporate sponsors are exercising their free speech by shutting off their money sponsorship to her ventures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may very well be about money, but that is because of the arrogance and intolerance of progressives.  Progressives attempt to force everyone to be tolerant, yet they are the most intolerant people on the face of the earth. Corporations realize that progressives will attempt to destroy anyone, everyone and everything that does not succumb to their intolerance.
> 
> Yes, there is a huge difference between a liberal and a progressive.  Liberals are decent human beings that believe in helping those in need.  Progressives are the religious right of the left, are extremely intolerant just as the RR and are vindictive as hell.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Its funny but I would like you to show me the true and intolerance of the so-called religious right. 

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say anything at all about liberals and if I did, it was a mistake.  I blamed progressives and their force everyone to be politically correct attitudes. Do you not realize that there is a difference between liberals and progressives?  No, maybe you don't because at times it seems you confuse me as a moderate conservative with the religious right/neo-cons.
> 
> I may have at one time agreed with the RR, but that was before I started reading what they stood for and that was several years ago. In fact, mid Bush years.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I defend progressives as much as liberals. They are the same. This has NOTHING to do with 'political correctness'. And their is no 'force everyone to be politically correct' attitude. That is more bullshit. This about MONEY. The corporate sponsors are exercising their free speech by shutting off their money sponsorship to her ventures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may very well be about money, but that is because of the arrogance and intolerance of progressives.  Progressives attempt to force everyone to be tolerant, yet they are the most intolerant people on the face of the earth. Corporations realize that progressives will attempt to destroy anyone, everyone and everything that does not succumb to their intolerance.
> 
> Yes, there is a huge difference between a liberal and a progressive.  Liberals are decent human beings that believe in helping those in need.  Progressives are the religious right of the left, are extremely intolerant just as the RR and are vindictive as hell.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


You right wingers are absolutely AMAZING! You will do anything and everything under the sun to shield your beloved corporations from ANY criticism or responsibility.

You folks make me sick. You PREACH personal responsibility, then you ALWAYS play the victim-hood blame game. It is either the fault of liberals, progressives or government when some INDIVIDUAL fucks up.

I have zero problem with what Deen said 30 years ago. But now I am more likely to side against her just because of you retards. 

I can only IMAGINE if this were Howard Dean and not Paula Deen. You right wing turds would be howling and calling for lynchings.

Go find a fucking MIRROR Immie.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I defend progressives as much as liberals. They are the same. This has NOTHING to do with 'political correctness'. And their is no 'force everyone to be politically correct' attitude. That is more bullshit. This about MONEY. The corporate sponsors are exercising their free speech by shutting off their money sponsorship to her ventures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may very well be about money, but that is because of the arrogance and intolerance of progressives.  Progressives attempt to force everyone to be tolerant, yet they are the most intolerant people on the face of the earth. Corporations realize that progressives will attempt to destroy anyone, everyone and everything that does not succumb to their intolerance.
> 
> Yes, there is a huge difference between a liberal and a progressive.  Liberals are decent human beings that believe in helping those in need.  Progressives are the religious right of the left, are extremely intolerant just as the RR and are vindictive as hell.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You right wingers are absolutely AMAZING! You will do anything and everything under the sun to shield your beloved corporations from ANY criticism or responsibility.
> 
> You folks make me sick. You PREACH personal responsibility, then you ALWAYS play the victim-hood blame game. It is either the fault of liberals, progressives or government when some INDIVIDUAL fucks up.
> 
> I have zero problem with what Deen said 30 years ago. But now I am more likely to side against her just because of you retards.
> 
> I can only IMAGINE if this were Howard Dean and not Paula Deen. You right wing turds would be howling and calling for lynchings.
> 
> Go find a fucking MIRROR Immie.
Click to expand...


calm down Spanky. I don't have beloved corporations I just don't think making money is the root of all evil. by the way most of the biggest corporations in the world are ran by progressives. You know like soros

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## Immanuel

thanatos144 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I defend progressives as much as liberals. They are the same. This has NOTHING to do with 'political correctness'. And their is no 'force everyone to be politically correct' attitude. That is more bullshit. This about MONEY. The corporate sponsors are exercising their free speech by shutting off their money sponsorship to her ventures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may very well be about money, but that is because of the arrogance and intolerance of progressives.  Progressives attempt to force everyone to be tolerant, yet they are the most intolerant people on the face of the earth. Corporations realize that progressives will attempt to destroy anyone, everyone and everything that does not succumb to their intolerance.
> 
> Yes, there is a huge difference between a liberal and a progressive.  Liberals are decent human beings that believe in helping those in need.  Progressives are the religious right of the left, are extremely intolerant just as the RR and are vindictive as hell.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its funny but I would like you to show me the true and intolerance of the so-called religious right.
> 
> Welcome to my nightmare
Click to expand...


I have not denied the intolerance of the religious right.  If you know anything at all about the Gospel, the religious right are today's version of the Pharisees. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are prime examples of Religious Right individuals who are intolerant of sinners.  These two speak of salvation as if it is something that can be earned and if you are a homosexual, you cannot receive forgiveness of your sins. Jimmy Swaggert is another example.  He fell and hopefully received forgiveness for his sins yet before his fall, I believe, he used to preach that all homosexuals were condemned to Hell unless they renounced their lifestyle.

Now, since your post seems to indicate that you believe progressives are tolerant (unless I am mis-reading your meaning) I would love for you to show any semblance of progressive tolerance of those who do not succumb to their PC bullshit.

Edit: be my guest, use bfgrn as your example of progressive tolerance 

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I defend progressives as much as liberals. They are the same. This has NOTHING to do with 'political correctness'. And their is no 'force everyone to be politically correct' attitude. That is more bullshit. This about MONEY. The corporate sponsors are exercising their free speech by shutting off their money sponsorship to her ventures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may very well be about money, but that is because of the arrogance and intolerance of progressives.  Progressives attempt to force everyone to be tolerant, yet they are the most intolerant people on the face of the earth. Corporations realize that progressives will attempt to destroy anyone, everyone and everything that does not succumb to their intolerance.
> 
> Yes, there is a huge difference between a liberal and a progressive.  Liberals are decent human beings that believe in helping those in need.  Progressives are the religious right of the left, are extremely intolerant just as the RR and are vindictive as hell.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You right wingers are absolutely AMAZING! You will do anything and everything under the sun to shield your beloved corporations from ANY criticism or responsibility.
> 
> You folks make me sick. You PREACH personal responsibility, then you ALWAYS play the victim-hood blame game. It is either the fault of liberals, progressives or government when some INDIVIDUAL fucks up.
> 
> I have zero problem with what Deen said 30 years ago. But now I am more likely to side against her just because of you retards.
> 
> I can only IMAGINE if this were Howard Dean and not Paula Deen. You right wing turds would be howling and calling for lynchings.
> 
> Go find a fucking MIRROR Immie.
Click to expand...


If you were not so partisan and intolerant, you would know that I oppose both sides and also that I am as quick to condemn Bush as I am Obama.  That is not something your intolerant ass can say.

Immie


----------



## thanatos144

Immanuel said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It may very well be about money, but that is because of the arrogance and intolerance of progressives.  Progressives attempt to force everyone to be tolerant, yet they are the most intolerant people on the face of the earth. Corporations realize that progressives will attempt to destroy anyone, everyone and everything that does not succumb to their intolerance.
> 
> Yes, there is a huge difference between a liberal and a progressive.  Liberals are decent human beings that believe in helping those in need.  Progressives are the religious right of the left, are extremely intolerant just as the RR and are vindictive as hell.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its funny but I would like you to show me the true and intolerance of the so-called religious right.
> 
> Welcome to my nightmare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not denied the intolerance of the religious right.  If you know anything at all about the Gospel, the religious right are today's version of the Pharisees. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are prime examples of Religious Right individuals who are intolerant of sinners.  These two speak of salvation as if it is something that can be earned and if you are a homosexual, you cannot receive forgiveness of your sins. Jimmy Swaggert is another example.  He fell and hopefully received forgiveness for his sins yet before his fall, I believe, he used to preach that all homosexuals were condemned to Hell unless they renounced their lifestyle.
> 
> Now, since your post seems to indicate that you believe progressives are tolerant (unless I am mis-reading your meaning) I would love for you to show any semblance of progressive tolerance of those who do not succumb to their PC bullshit.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


tell me do you find intolerant to preach against adultery? Or that a man and a woman should stay together provide for the family? or is it all just wrapped up in homosexual marriage? sodomy is a sin. I just don't think they should be punished for believing that's in is a bad thing.

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## Immanuel

thanatos144 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its funny but I would like you to show me the true and intolerance of the so-called religious right.
> 
> Welcome to my nightmare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not denied the intolerance of the religious right.  If you know anything at all about the Gospel, the religious right are today's version of the Pharisees. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are prime examples of Religious Right individuals who are intolerant of sinners.  These two speak of salvation as if it is something that can be earned and if you are a homosexual, you cannot receive forgiveness of your sins. Jimmy Swaggert is another example.  He fell and hopefully received forgiveness for his sins yet before his fall, I believe, he used to preach that all homosexuals were condemned to Hell unless they renounced their lifestyle.
> 
> Now, since your post seems to indicate that you believe progressives are tolerant (unless I am mis-reading your meaning) I would love for you to show any semblance of progressive tolerance of those who do not succumb to their PC bullshit.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> tell me do you find intolerant to preach against adultery? Or that a man and a woman should stay together provide for the family? or is it all just wrapped up in homosexual marriage? sodomy is a sin. I just don't think they should be punished for believing that's in is a bad thing.
> 
> Welcome to my nightmare
Click to expand...


I am not certain I understand your questions.

I do not think it is intolerant to preach against sin at all, whether it be adultery, homosexuality, theft, murder, covetousness etc.  Where I believe the RR become intolerant is their selective nature of sinfulness and their withholding of salvation (if that were actually possible) to those "sinners". In other words, their attitude that says, "I am a sinner, but my sin is not as bad as yours".

The reason I do not believe it is intolerant to preach against sin is that I believe the Law was designed to show all of us our sinfulness and lead us to salvation rather than hinder us from salvation.  Therefore, a homosexual is as elligible to receive salvation as I am.  The intolerance comes when one preaches that certain types of sinners, for instance homosexuals, are not elligible for salvation.

I hope that clears things up.  I believe the homosexual is no less likely to receive forgiveness than I.

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will say it.  The offense happened 27 years ago.  And supposedly it has not happened since.  You are doggone right they should not have reported it!  I despise the word, but I cannot say that in my young and stupid days, I never used it.  This is PC hypocrisy at its worst.  It is nothing more than a hit piece.
> 
> I would not be surprised to find out that if you questioned the progressive moron that broke the story and could somehow get an honest response, you would find he/she has used it in the last 27 years numerous times.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY ones who have a problem with her comments are SPONSORS. Deen was sued in a public court. If she was concerned about what damage would come out in the lawsuit, she could have settled out of court. Once it goes to the public court system, it becomes public domain. Unless a judge intervenes with a gag order.
> 
> THAT is how America works. You can't say you believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press and liberty, and THEN want America to become Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To add to my last, your statement that she should have settled out of court is akin to saying that the accused should succumb to extortion and be at the mercy of anyone who wants to file a suit against them.
> 
> That is ridiculous.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


That's fine Immie. But, SHE is the one who is NOW having sponsorship money extorted away from her ventures.


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY ones who have a problem with her comments are SPONSORS. Deen was sued in a public court. If she was concerned about what damage would come out in the lawsuit, she could have settled out of court. Once it goes to the public court system, it becomes public domain. Unless a judge intervenes with a gag order.
> 
> THAT is how America works. You can't say you believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press and liberty, and THEN want America to become Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To add to my last, your statement that she should have settled out of court is akin to saying that the accused should succumb to extortion and be at the mercy of anyone who wants to file a suit against them.
> 
> That is ridiculous.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fine Immie. But, SHE is the one who is NOW having sponsorship money extorted away from her ventures.
Click to expand...


Only because of fear (corporate) and intolerance/hatred (from the left).  Now, you can state that you and other progressives have said little if anything at all about The Paula Deen scandal.  But, the issue is not what they have said in this case, but rather the threats and actions of the left in the past, for instance, Chik-fil-a.  What would be said today if those companies had not dropped Paula Deen?

Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Students at several colleges and universities launched grassroots efforts to ban or remove the company's restaurants from their campuses. On November 3, 2011, the New York University Student Senators Council voted 19 to 4 to retain the Chick-fil-A franchise on campus. This vote came before a petition with over 11,000 signatures opposing its presence on campus was sent to the student council.[36] On February 28, 2012, the Northeastern University (NU) student senate passed a resolution to cancel plans for a Chick-fil-A franchise on campus, stating that "the student body does not support bringing CFA [Chick-fil-A] to campus", and "Student concerns reflected CFA's history of donating to anti-gay organizations." The vote was 31 to 5, with 8 abstaining. The restaurant chain was finalizing a contract to bring it to NU when students protested.[37] Davidson College in North Carolina announced on August 13, 2011 that, in response to a petition which received 500 signatures, the school will stop serving Chick-fil-A on campus at the monthly After Midnight events.[38]
> 
> Other forms of protest occurred. Gay rights activists organized a "Kiss Off" to occur on August 3,[39] an event where LGBT individuals would show affection in public,[40] but it attracted smaller than hoped for crowds.[41]



Talk about succumbing to extortion?

Immie


----------



## thanatos144

Immanuel said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not denied the intolerance of the religious right.  If you know anything at all about the Gospel, the religious right are today's version of the Pharisees. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are prime examples of Religious Right individuals who are intolerant of sinners.  These two speak of salvation as if it is something that can be earned and if you are a homosexual, you cannot receive forgiveness of your sins. Jimmy Swaggert is another example.  He fell and hopefully received forgiveness for his sins yet before his fall, I believe, he used to preach that all homosexuals were condemned to Hell unless they renounced their lifestyle.
> 
> Now, since your post seems to indicate that you believe progressives are tolerant (unless I am mis-reading your meaning) I would love for you to show any semblance of progressive tolerance of those who do not succumb to their PC bullshit.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tell me do you find intolerant to preach against adultery? Or that a man and a woman should stay together provide for the family? or is it all just wrapped up in homosexual marriage? sodomy is a sin. I just don't think they should be punished for believing that's in is a bad thing.
> 
> Welcome to my nightmare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not certain I understand your questions.
> 
> I do not think it is intolerant to preach against sin at all, whether it be adultery, homosexuality, theft, murder, covetousness etc.  Where I believe the RR become intolerant is their selective nature of sinfulness and their withholding of salvation (if that were actually possible) to those "sinners". In other words, their attitude that says, "I am a sinner, but my sin is not as bad as yours".
> 
> The reason I do not believe it is intolerant to preach against sin is that I believe the Law was designed to show all of us our sinfulness and lead us to salvation rather than hinder us from salvation.  Therefore, a homosexual is as elligible to receive salvation as I am.  The intolerance comes when one preaches that certain types of sinners, for instance homosexuals, are not elligible for salvation.
> 
> I hope that clears things up.  I believe the homosexual is no less likely to receive forgiveness than I.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I have never seen a Christian go out of their way to destroy a life because of what a person said . I have seen progressives do just that. not believing in homosexual marriage does not make one intolerant. if made legal in a state Christians will not ruin a life. can we say the same for the tolerance of progressives . 

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> To add to my last, your statement that she should have settled out of court is akin to saying that the accused should succumb to extortion and be at the mercy of anyone who wants to file a suit against them.
> 
> That is ridiculous.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine Immie. But, SHE is the one who is NOW having sponsorship money extorted away from her ventures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only because of fear (corporate) and intolerance/hatred (from the left).  Now, you can state that you and other progressives have said little if anything at all about The Paula Deen scandal.  But, the issue is not what they have said in this case, but rather the threats and actions of the left in the past, for instance, Chik-fil-a.  What would be said today if those companies had not dropped Paula Deen?
> 
> Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Students at several colleges and universities launched grassroots efforts to ban or remove the company's restaurants from their campuses. On November 3, 2011, the New York University Student Senators Council voted 19 to 4 to retain the Chick-fil-A franchise on campus. This vote came before a petition with over 11,000 signatures opposing its presence on campus was sent to the student council.[36] On February 28, 2012, the Northeastern University (NU) student senate passed a resolution to cancel plans for a Chick-fil-A franchise on campus, stating that "the student body does not support bringing CFA [Chick-fil-A] to campus", and "Student concerns reflected CFA's history of donating to anti-gay organizations." The vote was 31 to 5, with 8 abstaining. The restaurant chain was finalizing a contract to bring it to NU when students protested.[37] Davidson College in North Carolina announced on August 13, 2011 that, in response to a petition which received 500 signatures, the school will stop serving Chick-fil-A on campus at the monthly After Midnight events.[38]
> 
> Other forms of protest occurred. Gay rights activists organized a "Kiss Off" to occur on August 3,[39] an event where LGBT individuals would show affection in public,[40] but it attracted smaller than hoped for crowds.[41]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about succumbing to extortion?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Immie, I can't believe you are this blind, are you? Go read on the Paula Deen threads how many conservatives are going to boycott the companies who dropped Paula Deen. But THAT is different??? How about what happened to the Dixie Chicks when they were critical of Bush. You are really conflating blame on ONE group of people who had NOTHING to do with Paula Deen's problems.


----------



## Foxfyre

While I don't know whether they exist or not, I haven't seen any Paula Deen posts where conservatives are boycotting anything related to this.

But if they are, there is a subtle difference.  They would be defending the unethical and wrong treatment of a person over a stupid verbal faux pas that never ever should have become an issue for anybody.   That is somewhat different than acting to destroy somebody over a stupid verbal faux pas.


----------



## Dragonlady

Deen was already on thin ice over her promotion of high fat and sugar diets which are contra-indicated for people at risk of diabetes and heart disease.  Then, when she was diagnosed with diabetes, she signed on as a spokesperson for a drug company which sells diabetic supplies, which continuing to promote the high sugar diet.

This woman has been asking for a slap down from her sponsors for a while.  Sounds to me like the this latest debacle is just an excuse for corporations who would have dumped her over the diabetes issue, but wanted to see how that the diabetic thing played out before making a decision.


----------



## Immanuel

thanatos144 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me do you find intolerant to preach against adultery? Or that a man and a woman should stay together provide for the family? or is it all just wrapped up in homosexual marriage? sodomy is a sin. I just don't think they should be punished for believing that's in is a bad thing.
> 
> Welcome to my nightmare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not certain I understand your questions.
> 
> I do not think it is intolerant to preach against sin at all, whether it be adultery, homosexuality, theft, murder, covetousness etc.  Where I believe the RR become intolerant is their selective nature of sinfulness and their withholding of salvation (if that were actually possible) to those "sinners". In other words, their attitude that says, "I am a sinner, but my sin is not as bad as yours".
> 
> The reason I do not believe it is intolerant to preach against sin is that I believe the Law was designed to show all of us our sinfulness and lead us to salvation rather than hinder us from salvation.  Therefore, a homosexual is as elligible to receive salvation as I am.  The intolerance comes when one preaches that certain types of sinners, for instance homosexuals, are not elligible for salvation.
> 
> I hope that clears things up.  I believe the homosexual is no less likely to receive forgiveness than I.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never seen a Christian go out of their way to destroy a life because of what a person said . I have seen progressives do just that. not believing in homosexual marriage does not make one intolerant. if made legal in a state Christians will not ruin a life. can we say the same for the tolerance of progressives .
> 
> Welcome to my nightmare
Click to expand...


No we cannot.

As for the Religious Right, I do not think they are out to destroy anyone's life, but neither were the Pharisees.

I do not believe in homosexual marriage.  Marriage is a rite of the church.  On the other hand, I do believe in the separation of church and state as well as the idea that the state should treat all citizens equally.  Therefore, I support state sanctioned civil unions and church sanctioned marriage. 

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine Immie. But, SHE is the one who is NOW having sponsorship money extorted away from her ventures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because of fear (corporate) and intolerance/hatred (from the left).  Now, you can state that you and other progressives have said little if anything at all about The Paula Deen scandal.  But, the issue is not what they have said in this case, but rather the threats and actions of the left in the past, for instance, Chik-fil-a.  What would be said today if those companies had not dropped Paula Deen?
> 
> Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Students at several colleges and universities launched grassroots efforts to ban or remove the company's restaurants from their campuses. On November 3, 2011, the New York University Student Senators Council voted 19 to 4 to retain the Chick-fil-A franchise on campus. This vote came before a petition with over 11,000 signatures opposing its presence on campus was sent to the student council.[36] On February 28, 2012, the Northeastern University (NU) student senate passed a resolution to cancel plans for a Chick-fil-A franchise on campus, stating that "the student body does not support bringing CFA [Chick-fil-A] to campus", and "Student concerns reflected CFA's history of donating to anti-gay organizations." The vote was 31 to 5, with 8 abstaining. The restaurant chain was finalizing a contract to bring it to NU when students protested.[37] Davidson College in North Carolina announced on August 13, 2011 that, in response to a petition which received 500 signatures, the school will stop serving Chick-fil-A on campus at the monthly After Midnight events.[38]
> 
> Other forms of protest occurred. Gay rights activists organized a "Kiss Off" to occur on August 3,[39] an event where LGBT individuals would show affection in public,[40] but it attracted smaller than hoped for crowds.[41]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about succumbing to extortion?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, I can't believe you are this blind, are you? Go read on the Paula Deen threads how many conservatives are going to boycott the companies who dropped Paula Deen. But THAT is different??? How about what happened to the Dixie Chicks when they were critical of Bush. You are really conflating blame on ONE group of people who had NOTHING to do with Paula Deen's problems.
Click to expand...


I have not read any of those threads.  As far as I know this thread is the only one I have participated in that has discussed the issue.  I do not doubt what you say, but I challenge you to find anything that I have said that denies extreme conservatives are different than progressives.  In fact, I have repeatedly stated that they too are intolerant.

And one more thing, bfgrn, I tend to really, really dislike the attitudes of the extreme right.  I just tend to dislike the same from the left.  I won't read the jerks from the right because they disgust me.  I will on occasion read the extreme left.

Immie


----------



## Redfish

I do not hate liberals,  I hate liberalism.


----------



## numan

'

Here we are in the midst of the Greatest Mass Extinction since the end of the dinosaurs, and all you characters can cram into your tiny brains is worrying about the trivia of sexual preferences.

The human race is *SO DOOMED!!!* · · 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






.


----------



## thanatos144

Dragonlady said:


> Deen was already on thin ice over her promotion of high fat and sugar diets which are contra-indicated for people at risk of diabetes and heart disease.  Then, when she was diagnosed with diabetes, she signed on as a spokesperson for a drug company which sells diabetic supplies, which continuing to promote the high sugar diet.
> 
> This woman has been asking for a slap down from her sponsors for a while.  Sounds to me like the this latest debacle is just an excuse for corporations who would have dumped her over the diabetes issue, but wanted to see how that the diabetic thing played out before making a decision.



She deserves it cause she likes sugar????


----------



## thanatos144

numan said:


> '
> 
> Here we are in the midst of the Greatest Mass Extinction since the end of the dinosaurs, and all you characters can cram into your tiny brains is worrying about the trivia of sexual preferences.
> 
> The human race is *SO DOOMED!!!* · ·
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Um how does homosexuals help the species from becoming extinct?


----------



## thanatos144

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only because of fear (corporate) and intolerance/hatred (from the left).  Now, you can state that you and other progressives have said little if anything at all about The Paula Deen scandal.  But, the issue is not what they have said in this case, but rather the threats and actions of the left in the past, for instance, Chik-fil-a.  What would be said today if those companies had not dropped Paula Deen?
> 
> Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about succumbing to extortion?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, I can't believe you are this blind, are you? Go read on the Paula Deen threads how many conservatives are going to boycott the companies who dropped Paula Deen. But THAT is different??? How about what happened to the Dixie Chicks when they were critical of Bush. You are really conflating blame on ONE group of people who had NOTHING to do with Paula Deen's problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not read any of those threads.  As far as I know this thread is the only one I have participated in that has discussed the issue.  I do not doubt what you say, but I challenge you to find anything that I have said that denies extreme conservatives are different than progressives.  In fact, I have repeatedly stated that they too are intolerant.
> 
> And one more thing, bfgrn, I tend to really, really dislike the attitudes of the extreme right.  I just tend to dislike the same from the left.  I won't read the jerks from the right because they disgust me.  I will on occasion read the extreme left.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

Conservatives are for more freedom progressives are for less...... They are very fucking different.


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, I can't believe you are this blind, are you? Go read on the Paula Deen threads how many conservatives are going to boycott the companies who dropped Paula Deen. But THAT is different??? How about what happened to the Dixie Chicks when they were critical of Bush. You are really conflating blame on ONE group of people who had NOTHING to do with Paula Deen's problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not read any of those threads.  As far as I know this thread is the only one I have participated in that has discussed the issue.  I do not doubt what you say, but I challenge you to find anything that I have said that denies extreme conservatives are different than progressives.  In fact, I have repeatedly stated that they too are intolerant.
> 
> And one more thing, bfgrn, I tend to really, really dislike the attitudes of the extreme right.  I just tend to dislike the same from the left.  I won't read the jerks from the right because they disgust me.  I will on occasion read the extreme left.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives are for more freedom progressives are for less...... They are very fucking different.
Click to expand...


Yea, ask the Dixie Chicks...


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not read any of those threads.  As far as I know this thread is the only one I have participated in that has discussed the issue.  I do not doubt what you say, but I challenge you to find anything that I have said that denies extreme conservatives are different than progressives.  In fact, I have repeatedly stated that they too are intolerant.
> 
> And one more thing, bfgrn, I tend to really, really dislike the attitudes of the extreme right.  I just tend to dislike the same from the left.  I won't read the jerks from the right because they disgust me.  I will on occasion read the extreme left.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are for more freedom progressives are for less...... They are very fucking different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, ask the Dixie Chicks...
Click to expand...


Calling someone a stupid bitch for what they say is not the same as saying they cant say that...... Progressives silence free speech conservatives tell you what they think of what you said.


----------



## Immanuel

thanatos144 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, I can't believe you are this blind, are you? Go read on the Paula Deen threads how many conservatives are going to boycott the companies who dropped Paula Deen. But THAT is different??? How about what happened to the Dixie Chicks when they were critical of Bush. You are really conflating blame on ONE group of people who had NOTHING to do with Paula Deen's problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not read any of those threads.  As far as I know this thread is the only one I have participated in that has discussed the issue.  I do not doubt what you say, but I challenge you to find anything that I have said that denies extreme conservatives are different than progressives.  In fact, I have repeatedly stated that they too are intolerant.
> 
> And one more thing, bfgrn, I tend to really, really dislike the attitudes of the extreme right.  I just tend to dislike the same from the left.  I won't read the jerks from the right because they disgust me.  I will on occasion read the extreme left.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives are for more freedom progressives are for less...... They are very fucking different.
Click to expand...


Define "conservative".

If you are talking about the far right, I would disagree.  If you are talking about middle of the road conservatives, I would agree.  

An example would be the Patriot Act, brought to us by the supposedly, and I emphasize supposedly, conservative Bush Administration.  There is no way in hell anyone can claim that promotes "more rights".    Obamacare is another example.  I hear tale that most of the major provisions of that accursed legislation came directly from the pens of supposedly conservative Republicans.  Again, no way in hell that promotes more rights.  Bush promoted the NSA wiretapping for our own good.  

When you look at the two extremes about the only difference that can be found is what rights do they want to take away from us *FIRST*.

Yes, you have it, I am sick of both parties and their lies.  Both unions of professional politicians disgust me.  

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not read any of those threads.  As far as I know this thread is the only one I have participated in that has discussed the issue.  I do not doubt what you say, but I challenge you to find anything that I have said that denies extreme conservatives are different than progressives.  In fact, I have repeatedly stated that they too are intolerant.
> 
> And one more thing, bfgrn, I tend to really, really dislike the attitudes of the extreme right.  I just tend to dislike the same from the left.  I won't read the jerks from the right because they disgust me.  I will on occasion read the extreme left.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are for more freedom progressives are for less...... They are very fucking different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, ask the Dixie Chicks...
Click to expand...


I hated the Dixie Chicks before Natalie made that comment.  I despised their song _Good-bye Earl_ because it made a joke of murder even though Earl deserved what he got.  I did not agree with the effort to boycott their music even though I personally turned off my radio in silent protest of their music . It became a joke with my family about how quickly dad turned the radio off when a Dixie Chicks song came on the air.

But, your example is dead on.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are for more freedom progressives are for less...... They are very fucking different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, ask the Dixie Chicks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling someone a stupid bitch for what they say is not the same as saying they cant say that...... Progressives silence free speech conservatives tell you what they think of what you said.
Click to expand...


As far as I know, conservatives succeeded in black-balling, forgive me if that term has racial connotations, I mean nothing disrespectful, the Dixie Chicks from the radio.  The station I listen to, WQYK in Tampa, a Clear Channel affiliate, thankfully  hasn't played one of their songs in years.

Immie


----------



## thanatos144

Immanuel said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, ask the Dixie Chicks...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling someone a stupid bitch for what they say is not the same as saying they cant say that...... Progressives silence free speech conservatives tell you what they think of what you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as I know, conservatives succeeded in black-balling, forgive me if that term has racial connotations, I mean nothing disrespectful, the Dixie Chicks from the radio.  The station I listen to, WQYK in Tampa, a Clear Channel affiliate, thankfully  hasn't played one of their songs in years.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

Thats called protesting with your wallet. They never said they couldnt stay stupid shit that doesn't mean we have to buy their music...Truthfully even if they said nothing they would be over cause they sucked.


----------



## francoHFW

Conservatives believe in more freedom for the greedy idiot rich to screw everyone else, PERIOD.

OP- "People" LOL hate liberals because they don't like to be shown they're brainwashed chumps of the greedy idiot rich, and that everything they "know" is PUBCRAPPE..


----------



## Immanuel

thanatos144 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling someone a stupid bitch for what they say is not the same as saying they cant say that...... Progressives silence free speech conservatives tell you what they think of what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, conservatives succeeded in black-balling, forgive me if that term has racial connotations, I mean nothing disrespectful, the Dixie Chicks from the radio.  The station I listen to, WQYK in Tampa, a Clear Channel affiliate, thankfully  hasn't played one of their songs in years.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats called protesting with your wallet. They never said they couldnt stay stupid shit that doesn't mean we have to buy their music...Truthfully even if they said nothing they would be over cause they sucked.
Click to expand...


But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?

Immie


----------



## thanatos144

Immanuel said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, conservatives succeeded in black-balling, forgive me if that term has racial connotations, I mean nothing disrespectful, the Dixie Chicks from the radio.  The station I listen to, WQYK in Tampa, a Clear Channel affiliate, thankfully  hasn't played one of their songs in years.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> Thats called protesting with your wallet. They never said they couldnt stay stupid shit that doesn't mean we have to buy their music...Truthfully even if they said nothing they would be over cause they sucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


So? Let them boycott. They failed at it. Why? Because chik fil a's customer base was varied. The dixie chicks quite literally pissed off 90% of their customer base.... It would be like Popeye's making a commercial with the spokesman being a Klan member.  You just cant fix stupid.


----------



## Intense

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


*
Moved to Philosophy Forum. Zone 3 Posting Rules apply.*


----------



## Immanuel

thanatos144 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats called protesting with your wallet. They never said they couldnt stay stupid shit that doesn't mean we have to buy their music...Truthfully even if they said nothing they would be over cause they sucked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? Let them boycott. They failed at it. Why? Because chik fil a's customer base was varied. The dixie chicks quite literally pissed off 90% of their customer base.... It would be like Popeye's making a commercial with the spokesman being a Klan member.  You just cant fix stupid.
Click to expand...


But the point is that you said there was a difference between left and right.  You stated the left wanted to remove right and I think your words were that conservatives wanted to enhance freedoms.  I have to say that when it comes to extremes, I simply do not see it.

Immie


----------



## thanatos144

Immanuel said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So? Let them boycott. They failed at it. Why? Because chik fil a's customer base was varied. The dixie chicks quite literally pissed off 90% of their customer base.... It would be like Popeye's making a commercial with the spokesman being a Klan member.  You just cant fix stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the point is that you said there was a difference between left and right.  You stated the left wanted to remove right and I think your words were that conservatives wanted to enhance freedoms.  I have to say that when it comes to extremes, I simply do not see it.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 not buying their stuff is just are saying what they said was stupid. No one silenced or with malicious intent trying to destroy them.


----------



## Immanuel

thanatos144 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Let them boycott. They failed at it. Why? Because chik fil a's customer base was varied. The dixie chicks quite literally pissed off 90% of their customer base.... It would be like Popeye's making a commercial with the spokesman being a Klan member.  You just cant fix stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the point is that you said there was a difference between left and right.  You stated the left wanted to remove right and I think your words were that conservatives wanted to enhance freedoms.  I have to say that when it comes to extremes, I simply do not see it.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not buying their stuff is just are saying what they said was stupid. No one silenced or with malicious intent trying to destroy them.
Click to expand...


That is exactly what conservatives did to the Dixie Chicks.  Progressives attempted the same thing with Chik-Fil-A.  What I am trying to understand is how anyone can see a difference between the two incidents.

Immie


----------



## Dragonlady

thanatos144 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Let them boycott. They failed at it. Why? Because chik fil a's customer base was varied. The dixie chicks quite literally pissed off 90% of their customer base.... It would be like Popeye's making a commercial with the spokesman being a Klan member.  You just cant fix stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the point is that you said there was a difference between left and right.  You stated the left wanted to remove right and I think your words were that conservatives wanted to enhance freedoms.  I have to say that when it comes to extremes, I simply do not see it.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not buying their stuff is just are saying what they said was stupid. No one silenced or with malicious intent trying to destroy them.
Click to expand...


Yes they did.  The Dixie Chicks were received death threats, their families were threatened.  People threw stuff at them.  They were treated horribly and frightened badly, for exercising their right to free speech, and this was done by conservatives who worship at the alter of the Constitution.


----------



## thanatos144

Are you  sure  it was conservatives that made the death threats? Because truth be told that sounds more like a libertarian to me

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## Foxfyre

Immanuel said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, conservatives succeeded in black-balling, forgive me if that term has racial connotations, I mean nothing disrespectful, the Dixie Chicks from the radio.  The station I listen to, WQYK in Tampa, a Clear Channel affiliate, thankfully  hasn't played one of their songs in years.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> Thats called protesting with your wallet. They never said they couldnt stay stupid shit that doesn't mean we have to buy their music...Truthfully even if they said nothing they would be over cause they sucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Did conservatives go after the Dixie Chicks' advertisers, promoters, record companies and attempt to get them dumped?  Did they attempt to destroy the Dixie Chicks means of making a living by attempting to block access to their fans or intimidate their fans or threaten anybody who sold their records?  Did they organize loud, disruptive protests outside of Dixie Chicks concerts?

If they did they were as bad as the progressives going after Chik-fil-a. 

But if they voiced their indvidual displeasure and contempt, chose not to buy Dixie Chik singles or albums, and turned off their radios, then they were much different that those progressives going after Chik-fil-a or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Paula Deen.

And once the Dixie Chicks apologized--which they did--that should have ended it and everybody moves on.

Back during the 70's, the Nestle Corporation was engaged in reprehensible marketing of infant formula in poor third world countries.  And we did organize a boycott of all Nestle products.  No threats.  No angry disruptive protests.  We just didn't buy their products.  And Nestle did finally come around and stopped doing it.
And we all started buying Nestle products again.

That too is very different than Progressives trying to punish Chick-fil-a or any of the others for simply being politically incorrect.

In the l980's, millions of us chose not to do business with those corporations who were doing business in South Africa.  We didn't threaten them or try to shut them down, but we divested ourselves of their stock and tried not to buy their products.  And that, among many other factors of world opinion, persuaded South Africa to stop cruel and indefensible policies of apartheid.  Once done, we all could resume business with South Africa.

There are right and wrong ways to express our displeasure or criticism.   Conservatives more often seek to correct unacceptable behavior.  Liberals more often seek to destroy whomever offends them.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats called protesting with your wallet. They never said they couldnt stay stupid shit that doesn't mean we have to buy their music...Truthfully even if they said nothing they would be over cause they sucked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did conservatives go after the Dixie Chicks' advertisers, promoters, record companies and attempt to get them dumped?  Did they attempt to destroy the Dixie Chicks means of making a living by attempting to block access to their fans or intimidate their fans or threaten anybody who sold their records?  Did they organize loud, disruptive protests outside of Dixie Chicks concerts?
> 
> If they did they were as bad as the progressives going after Chik-fil-a.
> 
> But if they voiced their indvidual displeasure and contempt, chose not to buy Dixie Chik singles or albums, and turned off their radios, then they were much different that those progressives going after Chik-fil-a or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Paula Deen.
> 
> And once the Dixie Chicks apologized--which they did--that should have ended it and everybody moves on.
> 
> Back during the 70's, the Nestle Corporation was engaged in reprehensible marketing of infant formula in poor third world countries.  And we did organize a boycott of all Nestle products.  No threats.  No angry disruptive protests.  We just didn't buy their products.  And Nestle did finally come around and stopped doing it.
> And we all started buying Nestle products again.
> 
> That too is very different than Progressives trying to punish Chick-fil-a or any of the others for simply being politically incorrect.
> 
> In the l980's, millions of us chose not to do business with those corporations who were doing business in South Africa.  We didn't threaten them or try to shut them down, but we divested ourselves of their stock and tried not to buy their products.  And that, among many other factors of world opinion, persuaded South Africa to stop cruel and indefensible policies of apartheid.  Once done, we all could resume business with South Africa.
> 
> There are right and wrong ways to express our displeasure or criticism.   Conservatives more often seek to correct unacceptable behavior.  Liberals more often seek to destroy whomever offends them.
Click to expand...


You are full of such self righteous and pious horseshit I can smell the stench over the internet. The FACTS are when Bush was in office there was NOTHING government could that was wrong. NOTHING. And anyone who questioned your beloved despot was attacked. Authoritarianism and authoritarian followers is deeply rooted in conservatism, and overwhelmingly a conservative orientation.

Liberalism is the antithesis of authoritarianism.

You keep touting about being libertarians. Well John Dean is a libertarian and was a close friend of the late Senator Barry Goldwater, a real libertarian. Dean wrote a book "Conservatives Without Conscience" that was originally going to be a collaboration with Goldwater, but Goldwater died before the book was completed...

Here is what Dean found and had to say in an interview: 

DEAN: Goldwater Republicanism is really R.I.P. It's been put to rest by most of the people who are now active in moving the movement further to the right than it's ever been. I think that Senator [Goldwater], before he departed, was very distressed with Conservatism. In fact, it was our conversations back in 1994 that started this book. That's really where I began. We wanted to find answers to the question, "Why were Republicans acting as they were?" -- Why Conservatives had taken over the party and were being followed as easily as they were in taking the party where [Goldwater] didn't want it to go.

OLBERMANN: What did you find? -- In less than the 200 pages that the book goes into.

DEAN: I ran into a massive study that has really been going on 50 years now by academics. They've never really shared this with the general public. It's a remarkable analysis of the authoritarian personality. Both those who are inclined to follow leaders and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders. It was not the opinion of social scientists. It was information they drew by questioning large numbers of people -- hundreds of thousands of people -- in anonymous testing where [the subjects] conceded their innermost feelings and reactions to things. And it came out that most of these people were pre-qualified to be conservatives and this, did indeed, fit with the authoritarian personality.

OLBERMANN: Did the studies indicate that this really has anything to do with the political point of view? Would it be easier to impose authoritarianism over the right than it would the left? Is it theoretically possible that it could have gone in either direction and it's just a question of people who like to follow other people?

DEAN: They have found, really, maybe a small, 1%, of the left who will follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's just overwhelmingly conservative orientation.

OLBERMANN: And the idea of leaders and followers going down this path or perhaps taking a country down this path requires -- this whole edifice requires and enemy. Communism, al Qaeda, Democrats, me... whoever for the two-minutes hate. I overuse the Orwellian analogies to nauseating proportions. But it really was, in reading what you wrote about, especially what the academics talked about. There was that two-minutes hate. There has to be an opponent, an enemy, to coalesce around or the whole thing falls apart. Is that the gist of it?

DEAN: It is one of the things, believe it or not, that still holds conservatism together. There is many factions in conservatism and their dislike or hatred of those they betray as liberal, who will basically be anybody who disagrees with them, is one of the cohesive factors. There are a few others but that's certainly one of the basics. There's no question that, particularly the followers, they're very aggressive in their effort to pursue and help their authority figure out or authority beliefs out. They will do what ever needs to be done in many regards. They will blindly follow. They stay loyal too long and this is the frightening part of it.


Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism. 
Barry Goldwater


----------



## Immanuel

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats called protesting with your wallet. They never said they couldnt stay stupid shit that doesn't mean we have to buy their music...Truthfully even if they said nothing they would be over cause they sucked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did conservatives go after the Dixie Chicks' advertisers, promoters, record companies and attempt to get them dumped?  Did they attempt to destroy the Dixie Chicks means of making a living by attempting to block access to their fans or intimidate their fans or threaten anybody who sold their records?  Did they organize loud, disruptive protests outside of Dixie Chicks concerts?
> 
> If they did they were as bad as the progressives going after Chik-fil-a.
> 
> But if they voiced their indvidual displeasure and contempt, chose not to buy Dixie Chik singles or albums, and turned off their radios, then they were much different that those progressives going after Chik-fil-a or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Paula Deen.
> 
> And once the Dixie Chicks apologized--which they did--that should have ended it and everybody moves on.
> 
> Back during the 70's, the Nestle Corporation was engaged in reprehensible marketing of infant formula in poor third world countries.  And we did organize a boycott of all Nestle products.  No threats.  No angry disruptive protests.  We just didn't buy their products.  And Nestle did finally come around and stopped doing it.
> And we all started buying Nestle products again.
> 
> That too is very different than Progressives trying to punish Chick-fil-a or any of the others for simply being politically incorrect.
> 
> In the l980's, millions of us chose not to do business with those corporations who were doing business in South Africa.  We didn't threaten them or try to shut them down, but we divested ourselves of their stock and tried not to buy their products.  And that, among many other factors of world opinion, persuaded South Africa to stop cruel and indefensible policies of apartheid.  Once done, we all could resume business with South Africa.
> 
> There are right and wrong ways to express our displeasure or criticism.   Conservatives more often seek to correct unacceptable behavior.  Liberals more often seek to destroy whomever offends them.
Click to expand...


Whether or not it was conservatives is up to debate.  One thing is for certain, they were supporters of George W. Bush and in regards to your first paragraph's three questions, yes, they did on all three counts.  Around here at least they contacted the radio stations and threatened to quit listening to those channels that continued to play Dixie Chicks' music.

While I generally agree with your final two sentences, who has the right to define "unacceptable behavior" and can it not be said that progressives (as the extreme versions of liberals) are simply seeking to correct unacceptable behavior as opposed to destroying whomever offends them?  Do those last two statements you made, in fact, simply reflect  our (note I said "our" not "your" and it was not a typo) own personal biases?  One could very easily interchange those two phrases: "correct unacceptable behavior" and "destroy whomever offends them" or use either one for both sentences.  

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did conservatives go after the Dixie Chicks' advertisers, promoters, record companies and attempt to get them dumped?  Did they attempt to destroy the Dixie Chicks means of making a living by attempting to block access to their fans or intimidate their fans or threaten anybody who sold their records?  Did they organize loud, disruptive protests outside of Dixie Chicks concerts?
> 
> If they did they were as bad as the progressives going after Chik-fil-a.
> 
> But if they voiced their indvidual displeasure and contempt, chose not to buy Dixie Chik singles or albums, and turned off their radios, then they were much different that those progressives going after Chik-fil-a or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Paula Deen.
> 
> And once the Dixie Chicks apologized--which they did--that should have ended it and everybody moves on.
> 
> Back during the 70's, the Nestle Corporation was engaged in reprehensible marketing of infant formula in poor third world countries.  And we did organize a boycott of all Nestle products.  No threats.  No angry disruptive protests.  We just didn't buy their products.  And Nestle did finally come around and stopped doing it.
> And we all started buying Nestle products again.
> 
> That too is very different than Progressives trying to punish Chick-fil-a or any of the others for simply being politically incorrect.
> 
> In the l980's, millions of us chose not to do business with those corporations who were doing business in South Africa.  We didn't threaten them or try to shut them down, but we divested ourselves of their stock and tried not to buy their products.  And that, among many other factors of world opinion, persuaded South Africa to stop cruel and indefensible policies of apartheid.  Once done, we all could resume business with South Africa.
> 
> There are right and wrong ways to express our displeasure or criticism.   Conservatives more often seek to correct unacceptable behavior.  Liberals more often seek to destroy whomever offends them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are full of such self righteous and pious horseshit I can smell the stench over the internet. The FACTS are when Bush was in office there was NOTHING government could that was wrong. NOTHING. And anyone who questioned your beloved despot was attacked. Authoritarianism and authoritarian followers is deeply rooted in conservatism, and overwhelmingly a conservative orientation.
> 
> Liberalism is the antithesis of authoritarianism.
> 
> You keep touting about being libertarians. Well John Dean is a libertarian and was a close friend of the late Senator Barry Goldwater, a real libertarian. Dean wrote a book "Conservatives Without Conscience" that was originally going to be a collaboration with Goldwater, but Goldwater died before the book was completed...
> 
> Here is what Dean found and had to say in an interview:
> 
> DEAN: Goldwater Republicanism is really R.I.P. It's been put to rest by most of the people who are now active in moving the movement further to the right than it's ever been. I think that Senator [Goldwater], before he departed, was very distressed with Conservatism. In fact, it was our conversations back in 1994 that started this book. That's really where I began. We wanted to find answers to the question, "Why were Republicans acting as they were?" -- Why Conservatives had taken over the party and were being followed as easily as they were in taking the party where [Goldwater] didn't want it to go.
> 
> OLBERMANN: What did you find? -- In less than the 200 pages that the book goes into.
> 
> DEAN: I ran into a massive study that has really been going on 50 years now by academics. They've never really shared this with the general public. It's a remarkable analysis of the authoritarian personality. Both those who are inclined to follow leaders and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders. It was not the opinion of social scientists. It was information they drew by questioning large numbers of people -- hundreds of thousands of people -- in anonymous testing where [the subjects] conceded their innermost feelings and reactions to things. And it came out that most of these people were pre-qualified to be conservatives and this, did indeed, fit with the authoritarian personality.
> 
> OLBERMANN: Did the studies indicate that this really has anything to do with the political point of view? Would it be easier to impose authoritarianism over the right than it would the left? Is it theoretically possible that it could have gone in either direction and it's just a question of people who like to follow other people?
> 
> DEAN: They have found, really, maybe a small, 1%, of the left who will follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's just overwhelmingly conservative orientation.
> 
> OLBERMANN: And the idea of leaders and followers going down this path or perhaps taking a country down this path requires -- this whole edifice requires and enemy. Communism, al Qaeda, Democrats, me... whoever for the two-minutes hate. I overuse the Orwellian analogies to nauseating proportions. But it really was, in reading what you wrote about, especially what the academics talked about. There was that two-minutes hate. There has to be an opponent, an enemy, to coalesce around or the whole thing falls apart. Is that the gist of it?
> 
> DEAN: It is one of the things, believe it or not, that still holds conservatism together. There is many factions in conservatism and their dislike or hatred of those they betray as liberal, who will basically be anybody who disagrees with them, is one of the cohesive factors. There are a few others but that's certainly one of the basics. There's no question that, particularly the followers, they're very aggressive in their effort to pursue and help their authority figure out or authority beliefs out. They will do what ever needs to be done in many regards. They will blindly follow. They stay loyal too long and this is the frightening part of it.
> 
> 
> Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
> Barry Goldwater
Click to expand...


Sorry, have to disagree with you.  Today's "liberalism" is nothing short of an attempt to enslave the masses.  The gay rights issue is a very good example.  Those who disagree with today's politically correct liberalism are excoriated in all aspects of society.  One who dares to say "Marriage is between one man and one woman", will be verbally flogged if not physically flogged.  Those who dare to speak out against abortion are as well and are accused of wanting to keep a woman "barefoot and pregnant".  God help the man or woman who says that contraceptives should not be given by middle schools or that kindergarten should not be teaching sex education!

I can't and won't say that was liberalism from day one, but it is most definitely what conservatives have to put up with today.  I admit, conservatives aren't really all that different, but liberalism as it stands today is nothing short of forced enslavement of the masses.  Maybe you like to think that it is different because you support their causes, but don't you dare disagree with them on any subject.

Immie


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did conservatives go after the Dixie Chicks' advertisers, promoters, record companies and attempt to get them dumped?  Did they attempt to destroy the Dixie Chicks means of making a living by attempting to block access to their fans or intimidate their fans or threaten anybody who sold their records?  Did they organize loud, disruptive protests outside of Dixie Chicks concerts?
> 
> If they did they were as bad as the progressives going after Chik-fil-a.
> 
> But if they voiced their indvidual displeasure and contempt, chose not to buy Dixie Chik singles or albums, and turned off their radios, then they were much different that those progressives going after Chik-fil-a or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Paula Deen.
> 
> And once the Dixie Chicks apologized--which they did--that should have ended it and everybody moves on.
> 
> Back during the 70's, the Nestle Corporation was engaged in reprehensible marketing of infant formula in poor third world countries.  And we did organize a boycott of all Nestle products.  No threats.  No angry disruptive protests.  We just didn't buy their products.  And Nestle did finally come around and stopped doing it.
> And we all started buying Nestle products again.
> 
> That too is very different than Progressives trying to punish Chick-fil-a or any of the others for simply being politically incorrect.
> 
> In the l980's, millions of us chose not to do business with those corporations who were doing business in South Africa.  We didn't threaten them or try to shut them down, but we divested ourselves of their stock and tried not to buy their products.  And that, among many other factors of world opinion, persuaded South Africa to stop cruel and indefensible policies of apartheid.  Once done, we all could resume business with South Africa.
> 
> There are right and wrong ways to express our displeasure or criticism.   Conservatives more often seek to correct unacceptable behavior.  Liberals more often seek to destroy whomever offends them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are full of such self righteous and pious horseshit I can smell the stench over the internet. The FACTS are when Bush was in office there was NOTHING government could that was wrong. NOTHING. And anyone who questioned your beloved despot was attacked. Authoritarianism and authoritarian followers is deeply rooted in conservatism, and overwhelmingly a conservative orientation.
> 
> Liberalism is the antithesis of authoritarianism.
> 
> You keep touting about being libertarians. Well John Dean is a libertarian and was a close friend of the late Senator Barry Goldwater, a real libertarian. Dean wrote a book "Conservatives Without Conscience" that was originally going to be a collaboration with Goldwater, but Goldwater died before the book was completed...
> 
> Here is what Dean found and had to say in an interview:
> 
> DEAN: Goldwater Republicanism is really R.I.P. It's been put to rest by most of the people who are now active in moving the movement further to the right than it's ever been. I think that Senator [Goldwater], before he departed, was very distressed with Conservatism. In fact, it was our conversations back in 1994 that started this book. That's really where I began. We wanted to find answers to the question, "Why were Republicans acting as they were?" -- Why Conservatives had taken over the party and were being followed as easily as they were in taking the party where [Goldwater] didn't want it to go.
> 
> OLBERMANN: What did you find? -- In less than the 200 pages that the book goes into.
> 
> DEAN: I ran into a massive study that has really been going on 50 years now by academics. They've never really shared this with the general public. It's a remarkable analysis of the authoritarian personality. Both those who are inclined to follow leaders and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders. It was not the opinion of social scientists. It was information they drew by questioning large numbers of people -- hundreds of thousands of people -- in anonymous testing where [the subjects] conceded their innermost feelings and reactions to things. And it came out that most of these people were pre-qualified to be conservatives and this, did indeed, fit with the authoritarian personality.
> 
> OLBERMANN: Did the studies indicate that this really has anything to do with the political point of view? Would it be easier to impose authoritarianism over the right than it would the left? Is it theoretically possible that it could have gone in either direction and it's just a question of people who like to follow other people?
> 
> DEAN: They have found, really, maybe a small, 1%, of the left who will follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's just overwhelmingly conservative orientation.
> 
> OLBERMANN: And the idea of leaders and followers going down this path or perhaps taking a country down this path requires -- this whole edifice requires and enemy. Communism, al Qaeda, Democrats, me... whoever for the two-minutes hate. I overuse the Orwellian analogies to nauseating proportions. But it really was, in reading what you wrote about, especially what the academics talked about. There was that two-minutes hate. There has to be an opponent, an enemy, to coalesce around or the whole thing falls apart. Is that the gist of it?
> 
> DEAN: It is one of the things, believe it or not, that still holds conservatism together. There is many factions in conservatism and their dislike or hatred of those they betray as liberal, who will basically be anybody who disagrees with them, is one of the cohesive factors. There are a few others but that's certainly one of the basics. There's no question that, particularly the followers, they're very aggressive in their effort to pursue and help their authority figure out or authority beliefs out. They will do what ever needs to be done in many regards. They will blindly follow. They stay loyal too long and this is the frightening part of it.
> 
> 
> Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
> Barry Goldwater
Click to expand...


the only shit i  smell comes from your direction

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## Foxfyre

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did conservatives go after the Dixie Chicks' advertisers, promoters, record companies and attempt to get them dumped?  Did they attempt to destroy the Dixie Chicks means of making a living by attempting to block access to their fans or intimidate their fans or threaten anybody who sold their records?  Did they organize loud, disruptive protests outside of Dixie Chicks concerts?
> 
> If they did they were as bad as the progressives going after Chik-fil-a.
> 
> But if they voiced their indvidual displeasure and contempt, chose not to buy Dixie Chik singles or albums, and turned off their radios, then they were much different that those progressives going after Chik-fil-a or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Paula Deen.
> 
> And once the Dixie Chicks apologized--which they did--that should have ended it and everybody moves on.
> 
> Back during the 70's, the Nestle Corporation was engaged in reprehensible marketing of infant formula in poor third world countries.  And we did organize a boycott of all Nestle products.  No threats.  No angry disruptive protests.  We just didn't buy their products.  And Nestle did finally come around and stopped doing it.
> And we all started buying Nestle products again.
> 
> That too is very different than Progressives trying to punish Chick-fil-a or any of the others for simply being politically incorrect.
> 
> In the l980's, millions of us chose not to do business with those corporations who were doing business in South Africa.  We didn't threaten them or try to shut them down, but we divested ourselves of their stock and tried not to buy their products.  And that, among many other factors of world opinion, persuaded South Africa to stop cruel and indefensible policies of apartheid.  Once done, we all could resume business with South Africa.
> 
> There are right and wrong ways to express our displeasure or criticism.   Conservatives more often seek to correct unacceptable behavior.  Liberals more often seek to destroy whomever offends them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether or not it was conservatives is up to debate.  One thing is for certain, they were supporters of George W. Bush and in regards to your first paragraph's three questions, yes, they did on all three counts.  Around here at least they contacted the radio stations and threatened to quit listening to those channels that continued to play Dixie Chicks' music.
> 
> While I generally agree with your final two sentences, who has the right to define "unacceptable behavior" and can it not be said that progressives (as the extreme versions of liberals) are simply seeking to correct unacceptable behavior as opposed to destroying whomever offends them?  Do those last two statements you made, in fact, simply reflect  our (note I said "our" not "your" and it was not a typo) own personal biases?  One could very easily interchange those two phrases: "correct unacceptable behavior" and "destroy whomever offends them" or use either one for both sentences.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Well in this area there were no demands for radio stations to stop playing Dixie Chick music that I know of.  I don't disbelieve that you observed that in your area.  I just did not personally experience it so I don't know whether that was a widespread thing or what.  I do know that the liberal (as we define it) European press was cheering them on as were the more rabid of the anti-Bush and/or anti-war protesters here and abroad.  Sort of like the same sorts of people were cheering on Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War while others of us despised what she did.

But there is a difference between a personal choice to express our personal disapproval or criticism of somebody's actions and in attempting to destroy that person's reputation, relationships, and livelihood for making a politically incorrect statement.   Most especially when no apology is deemed good enough and the mob mentality to attack and demolish continues unabated.

I have no problem with the former and I don't think you do either.  And no matter who is doing it, I have a huge problem with the latter and I hope you do too.


----------



## Immanuel

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did conservatives go after the Dixie Chicks' advertisers, promoters, record companies and attempt to get them dumped?  Did they attempt to destroy the Dixie Chicks means of making a living by attempting to block access to their fans or intimidate their fans or threaten anybody who sold their records?  Did they organize loud, disruptive protests outside of Dixie Chicks concerts?
> 
> If they did they were as bad as the progressives going after Chik-fil-a.
> 
> But if they voiced their indvidual displeasure and contempt, chose not to buy Dixie Chik singles or albums, and turned off their radios, then they were much different that those progressives going after Chik-fil-a or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Paula Deen.
> 
> And once the Dixie Chicks apologized--which they did--that should have ended it and everybody moves on.
> 
> Back during the 70's, the Nestle Corporation was engaged in reprehensible marketing of infant formula in poor third world countries.  And we did organize a boycott of all Nestle products.  No threats.  No angry disruptive protests.  We just didn't buy their products.  And Nestle did finally come around and stopped doing it.
> And we all started buying Nestle products again.
> 
> That too is very different than Progressives trying to punish Chick-fil-a or any of the others for simply being politically incorrect.
> 
> In the l980's, millions of us chose not to do business with those corporations who were doing business in South Africa.  We didn't threaten them or try to shut them down, but we divested ourselves of their stock and tried not to buy their products.  And that, among many other factors of world opinion, persuaded South Africa to stop cruel and indefensible policies of apartheid.  Once done, we all could resume business with South Africa.
> 
> There are right and wrong ways to express our displeasure or criticism.   Conservatives more often seek to correct unacceptable behavior.  Liberals more often seek to destroy whomever offends them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not it was conservatives is up to debate.  One thing is for certain, they were supporters of George W. Bush and in regards to your first paragraph's three questions, yes, they did on all three counts.  Around here at least they contacted the radio stations and threatened to quit listening to those channels that continued to play Dixie Chicks' music.
> 
> While I generally agree with your final two sentences, who has the right to define "unacceptable behavior" and can it not be said that progressives (as the extreme versions of liberals) are simply seeking to correct unacceptable behavior as opposed to destroying whomever offends them?  Do those last two statements you made, in fact, simply reflect  our (note I said "our" not "your" and it was not a typo) own personal biases?  One could very easily interchange those two phrases: "correct unacceptable behavior" and "destroy whomever offends them" or use either one for both sentences.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well in this area there were no demands for radio stations to stop playing Dixie Chick music that I know of.  I don't disbelieve that you observed that in your area.  I just did not personally experience it so I don't know whether that was a widespread thing or what.  I do know that the liberal (as we define it) European press was cheering them on as were the more rabid of the anti-Bush and/or anti-war protesters here and abroad.  Sort of like the same sorts of people were cheering on Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War while others of us despised what she did.
> 
> But there is a difference between a personal choice to express our personal disapproval or criticism of somebody's actions and in attempting to destroy that person's reputation, relationships, and livelihood for making a politically incorrect statement.   Most especially when no apology is deemed good enough and the mob mentality to attack and demolish continues unabated.
> 
> I have no problem with the former and I don't think you do either.  And no matter who is doing it, I have a huge problem with the latter and I hope you do too.
Click to expand...


You didn't experience it?  I have to ask... do you listen to Country Music or that other "stuff".    j/k on the "stuff".  I generally like all kinds of music, but prefer music that tells a story.  Anyway, if you don't listen to CM, then I would expect that you would not have heard the bitching that went on.  If you do, when was the last time you heard the chicks on the radio?  Think hard!  

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did conservatives go after the Dixie Chicks' advertisers, promoters, record companies and attempt to get them dumped?  Did they attempt to destroy the Dixie Chicks means of making a living by attempting to block access to their fans or intimidate their fans or threaten anybody who sold their records?  Did they organize loud, disruptive protests outside of Dixie Chicks concerts?
> 
> If they did they were as bad as the progressives going after Chik-fil-a.
> 
> But if they voiced their indvidual displeasure and contempt, chose not to buy Dixie Chik singles or albums, and turned off their radios, then they were much different that those progressives going after Chik-fil-a or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Paula Deen.
> 
> And once the Dixie Chicks apologized--which they did--that should have ended it and everybody moves on.
> 
> Back during the 70's, the Nestle Corporation was engaged in reprehensible marketing of infant formula in poor third world countries.  And we did organize a boycott of all Nestle products.  No threats.  No angry disruptive protests.  We just didn't buy their products.  And Nestle did finally come around and stopped doing it.
> And we all started buying Nestle products again.
> 
> That too is very different than Progressives trying to punish Chick-fil-a or any of the others for simply being politically incorrect.
> 
> In the l980's, millions of us chose not to do business with those corporations who were doing business in South Africa.  We didn't threaten them or try to shut them down, but we divested ourselves of their stock and tried not to buy their products.  And that, among many other factors of world opinion, persuaded South Africa to stop cruel and indefensible policies of apartheid.  Once done, we all could resume business with South Africa.
> 
> There are right and wrong ways to express our displeasure or criticism.   Conservatives more often seek to correct unacceptable behavior.  Liberals more often seek to destroy whomever offends them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of such self righteous and pious horseshit I can smell the stench over the internet. The FACTS are when Bush was in office there was NOTHING government could that was wrong. NOTHING. And anyone who questioned your beloved despot was attacked. Authoritarianism and authoritarian followers is deeply rooted in conservatism, and overwhelmingly a conservative orientation.
> 
> Liberalism is the antithesis of authoritarianism.
> 
> You keep touting about being libertarians. Well John Dean is a libertarian and was a close friend of the late Senator Barry Goldwater, a real libertarian. Dean wrote a book "Conservatives Without Conscience" that was originally going to be a collaboration with Goldwater, but Goldwater died before the book was completed...
> 
> Here is what Dean found and had to say in an interview:
> 
> DEAN: Goldwater Republicanism is really R.I.P. It's been put to rest by most of the people who are now active in moving the movement further to the right than it's ever been. I think that Senator [Goldwater], before he departed, was very distressed with Conservatism. In fact, it was our conversations back in 1994 that started this book. That's really where I began. We wanted to find answers to the question, "Why were Republicans acting as they were?" -- Why Conservatives had taken over the party and were being followed as easily as they were in taking the party where [Goldwater] didn't want it to go.
> 
> OLBERMANN: What did you find? -- In less than the 200 pages that the book goes into.
> 
> DEAN: I ran into a massive study that has really been going on 50 years now by academics. They've never really shared this with the general public. It's a remarkable analysis of the authoritarian personality. Both those who are inclined to follow leaders and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders. It was not the opinion of social scientists. It was information they drew by questioning large numbers of people -- hundreds of thousands of people -- in anonymous testing where [the subjects] conceded their innermost feelings and reactions to things. And it came out that most of these people were pre-qualified to be conservatives and this, did indeed, fit with the authoritarian personality.
> 
> OLBERMANN: Did the studies indicate that this really has anything to do with the political point of view? Would it be easier to impose authoritarianism over the right than it would the left? Is it theoretically possible that it could have gone in either direction and it's just a question of people who like to follow other people?
> 
> DEAN: They have found, really, maybe a small, 1%, of the left who will follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's just overwhelmingly conservative orientation.
> 
> OLBERMANN: And the idea of leaders and followers going down this path or perhaps taking a country down this path requires -- this whole edifice requires and enemy. Communism, al Qaeda, Democrats, me... whoever for the two-minutes hate. I overuse the Orwellian analogies to nauseating proportions. But it really was, in reading what you wrote about, especially what the academics talked about. There was that two-minutes hate. There has to be an opponent, an enemy, to coalesce around or the whole thing falls apart. Is that the gist of it?
> 
> DEAN: It is one of the things, believe it or not, that still holds conservatism together. There is many factions in conservatism and their dislike or hatred of those they betray as liberal, who will basically be anybody who disagrees with them, is one of the cohesive factors. There are a few others but that's certainly one of the basics. There's no question that, particularly the followers, they're very aggressive in their effort to pursue and help their authority figure out or authority beliefs out. They will do what ever needs to be done in many regards. They will blindly follow. They stay loyal too long and this is the frightening part of it.
> 
> 
> Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, have to disagree with you.  Today's "liberalism" is nothing short of an attempt to enslave the masses.  The gay rights issue is a very good example.  Those who disagree with today's politically correct liberalism are excoriated in all aspects of society.  One who dares to say "Marriage is between one man and one woman", will be verbally flogged if not physically flogged.  Those who dare to speak out against abortion are as well and are accused of wanting to keep a woman "barefoot and pregnant".  God help the man or woman who says that contraceptives should not be given by middle schools or that kindergarten should not be teaching sex education!
> 
> I can't and won't say that was liberalism from day one, but it is most definitely what conservatives have to put up with today.  I admit, conservatives aren't really all that different, but liberalism as it stands today is nothing short of forced enslavement of the masses.  Maybe you like to think that it is different because you support their causes, but don't you dare disagree with them on any subject.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


No Immie. Liberalism is an attempt to FREE the masses. EVERY man or woman has the right to fall in love with who THEY choose, not who conservatives deem acceptable. EVERY woman has the right to decide what SHE chooses to do with her uterus, not what conservatives deem she can do with her uterus and her life.

Conservatives have the right to their opinion, but not the right to write laws that TAKE AWAY people's rights.

Conservatives have launched a frontal assault on unions, public employees, women's rights, immigrants, the environment, health care, voting rights, food safety, pensions, prenatal care, science, public broadcasting, and on and on.

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.


----------



## Foxfyre

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not it was conservatives is up to debate.  One thing is for certain, they were supporters of George W. Bush and in regards to your first paragraph's three questions, yes, they did on all three counts.  Around here at least they contacted the radio stations and threatened to quit listening to those channels that continued to play Dixie Chicks' music.
> 
> While I generally agree with your final two sentences, who has the right to define "unacceptable behavior" and can it not be said that progressives (as the extreme versions of liberals) are simply seeking to correct unacceptable behavior as opposed to destroying whomever offends them?  Do those last two statements you made, in fact, simply reflect  our (note I said "our" not "your" and it was not a typo) own personal biases?  One could very easily interchange those two phrases: "correct unacceptable behavior" and "destroy whomever offends them" or use either one for both sentences.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well in this area there were no demands for radio stations to stop playing Dixie Chick music that I know of.  I don't disbelieve that you observed that in your area.  I just did not personally experience it so I don't know whether that was a widespread thing or what.  I do know that the liberal (as we define it) European press was cheering them on as were the more rabid of the anti-Bush and/or anti-war protesters here and abroad.  Sort of like the same sorts of people were cheering on Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War while others of us despised what she did.
> 
> But there is a difference between a personal choice to express our personal disapproval or criticism of somebody's actions and in attempting to destroy that person's reputation, relationships, and livelihood for making a politically incorrect statement.   Most especially when no apology is deemed good enough and the mob mentality to attack and demolish continues unabated.
> 
> I have no problem with the former and I don't think you do either.  And no matter who is doing it, I have a huge problem with the latter and I hope you do too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't experience it?  I have to ask... do you listen to Country Music or that other "stuff".    j/k on the "stuff".  I generally like all kinds of music, but prefer music that tells a story.  Anyway, if you don't listen to CM, then I would expect that you would not have heard the bitching that went on.  If you do, when was the last time you heard the chicks on the radio?  Think hard!
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Since the mid 90's our favorite radio station went all news/talk and doesn't play any music at all.   If we listen to music at all on the radio, it will generally be golden oldies or country--both Mr. Foxfyre and I are country fans.  But we were never part of the Dixie Chick cult before their "London event" and despite a huge music collection of our own, I don't believe we have ever owned a Dixie Chick song even on a multi-artist album.   And I don't recall hearing them on the radio before or since the "London event".

They aren't on the radio these days though because they haven't recorded anything I think since 2005 or so?  The last I heard was two or three years ago they were going on tour with the Eagles and Keith Urban.   I don't know whether they've done anything since though seems I did read somewhere that the Chicks have a new album out sometime this summer?

But the point is, not I nor anybody I know in real life or in any other medium ever attacked the Dixie Chicks or tried to ruin their career.  Their comments in London were inexcusable and I condemned those remarks at the time.  But in my conservative soul, those comments didn't damn all that they have ever said or will ever say.  I don't really care whether they succeed or fail as they will not have my help either way.  And that does not have anything to do with the London event but simply with the fact that I have never been a fan.  Nor one out for their blood.

To most liberals, once they damn you, though, you are never to be forgiven anything.  You are damned and to be unforgiven forever.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of such self righteous and pious horseshit I can smell the stench over the internet. The FACTS are when Bush was in office there was NOTHING government could that was wrong. NOTHING. And anyone who questioned your beloved despot was attacked. Authoritarianism and authoritarian followers is deeply rooted in conservatism, and overwhelmingly a conservative orientation.
> 
> Liberalism is the antithesis of authoritarianism.
> 
> You keep touting about being libertarians. Well John Dean is a libertarian and was a close friend of the late Senator Barry Goldwater, a real libertarian. Dean wrote a book "Conservatives Without Conscience" that was originally going to be a collaboration with Goldwater, but Goldwater died before the book was completed...
> 
> Here is what Dean found and had to say in an interview:
> 
> DEAN: Goldwater Republicanism is really R.I.P. It's been put to rest by most of the people who are now active in moving the movement further to the right than it's ever been. I think that Senator [Goldwater], before he departed, was very distressed with Conservatism. In fact, it was our conversations back in 1994 that started this book. That's really where I began. We wanted to find answers to the question, "Why were Republicans acting as they were?" -- Why Conservatives had taken over the party and were being followed as easily as they were in taking the party where [Goldwater] didn't want it to go.
> 
> OLBERMANN: What did you find? -- In less than the 200 pages that the book goes into.
> 
> DEAN: I ran into a massive study that has really been going on 50 years now by academics. They've never really shared this with the general public. It's a remarkable analysis of the authoritarian personality. Both those who are inclined to follow leaders and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders. It was not the opinion of social scientists. It was information they drew by questioning large numbers of people -- hundreds of thousands of people -- in anonymous testing where [the subjects] conceded their innermost feelings and reactions to things. And it came out that most of these people were pre-qualified to be conservatives and this, did indeed, fit with the authoritarian personality.
> 
> OLBERMANN: Did the studies indicate that this really has anything to do with the political point of view? Would it be easier to impose authoritarianism over the right than it would the left? Is it theoretically possible that it could have gone in either direction and it's just a question of people who like to follow other people?
> 
> DEAN: They have found, really, maybe a small, 1%, of the left who will follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's just overwhelmingly conservative orientation.
> 
> OLBERMANN: And the idea of leaders and followers going down this path or perhaps taking a country down this path requires -- this whole edifice requires and enemy. Communism, al Qaeda, Democrats, me... whoever for the two-minutes hate. I overuse the Orwellian analogies to nauseating proportions. But it really was, in reading what you wrote about, especially what the academics talked about. There was that two-minutes hate. There has to be an opponent, an enemy, to coalesce around or the whole thing falls apart. Is that the gist of it?
> 
> DEAN: It is one of the things, believe it or not, that still holds conservatism together. There is many factions in conservatism and their dislike or hatred of those they betray as liberal, who will basically be anybody who disagrees with them, is one of the cohesive factors. There are a few others but that's certainly one of the basics. There's no question that, particularly the followers, they're very aggressive in their effort to pursue and help their authority figure out or authority beliefs out. They will do what ever needs to be done in many regards. They will blindly follow. They stay loyal too long and this is the frightening part of it.
> 
> 
> Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, have to disagree with you.  Today's "liberalism" is nothing short of an attempt to enslave the masses.  The gay rights issue is a very good example.  Those who disagree with today's politically correct liberalism are excoriated in all aspects of society.  One who dares to say "Marriage is between one man and one woman", will be verbally flogged if not physically flogged.  Those who dare to speak out against abortion are as well and are accused of wanting to keep a woman "barefoot and pregnant".  God help the man or woman who says that contraceptives should not be given by middle schools or that kindergarten should not be teaching sex education!
> 
> I can't and won't say that was liberalism from day one, but it is most definitely what conservatives have to put up with today.  I admit, conservatives aren't really all that different, but liberalism as it stands today is nothing short of forced enslavement of the masses.  Maybe you like to think that it is different because you support their causes, but don't you dare disagree with them on any subject.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Immie. Liberalism is an attempt to FREE the masses. EVERY man or woman has the right to fall in love with who THEY choose, not who conservatives deem acceptable. EVERY woman has the right to decide what SHE chooses to do with her uterus, not what conservatives deem she can do with her uterus and her life.
> 
> Conservatives have the right to their opinion, but not the right to write laws that TAKE AWAY people's rights.
> 
> Conservatives have launched a frontal assault on unions, public employees, women's rights, immigrants, the environment, health care, voting rights, food safety, pensions, prenatal care, science, public broadcasting, and on and on.
> 
> Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.
Click to expand...


do you even understand what conservative actually means or what it is to conserve? because quite frankly you don't sound like you know much of anything

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## thanatos144

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well in this area there were no demands for radio stations to stop playing Dixie Chick music that I know of.  I don't disbelieve that you observed that in your area.  I just did not personally experience it so I don't know whether that was a widespread thing or what.  I do know that the liberal (as we define it) European press was cheering them on as were the more rabid of the anti-Bush and/or anti-war protesters here and abroad.  Sort of like the same sorts of people were cheering on Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War while others of us despised what she did.
> 
> But there is a difference between a personal choice to express our personal disapproval or criticism of somebody's actions and in attempting to destroy that person's reputation, relationships, and livelihood for making a politically incorrect statement.   Most especially when no apology is deemed good enough and the mob mentality to attack and demolish continues unabated.
> 
> I have no problem with the former and I don't think you do either.  And no matter who is doing it, I have a huge problem with the latter and I hope you do too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't experience it?  I have to ask... do you listen to Country Music or that other "stuff".    j/k on the "stuff".  I generally like all kinds of music, but prefer music that tells a story.  Anyway, if you don't listen to CM, then I would expect that you would not have heard the bitching that went on.  If you do, when was the last time you heard the chicks on the radio?  Think hard!
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the mid 90's our favorite radio station went all news/talk and doesn't play any music at all.   If we listen to music at all on the radio, it will generally be golden oldies or country--both Mr. Foxfyre and I are country fans.  But we were never part of the Dixie Chick cult before their "London event" and despite a huge music collection of our own, I don't believe we have ever owned a Dixie Chick song even on a multi-artist album.   And I don't recall hearing them on the radio before or since the "London event".
> 
> They aren't on the radio these days though because they haven't recorded anything I think since 2005 or so?  The last I heard was two or three years ago they were going on tour with the Eagles and Keith Urban.   I don't know whether they've done anything since though seems I did read somewhere that the Chicks have a new album out sometime this summer?
> 
> But the point is, not I nor anybody I know in real life or in any other medium ever attacked the Dixie Chicks or tried to ruin their career.  Their comments in London were inexcusable and I condemned those remarks at the time.  But in my conservative soul, those comments didn't damn all that they have ever said or will ever say.  I don't really care whether they succeed or fail as they will not have my help either way.  And that does not have anything to do with the London event but simply with the fact that I have never been a fan.  Nor one out for their blood.
> 
> To most liberals, once they damn you, though, you are never to be forgiven anything.  You are damned and to be unforgiven forever.
Click to expand...


you're not missing much the Dixie Chicks we're not all that good to begin with.

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## Immanuel

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well in this area there were no demands for radio stations to stop playing Dixie Chick music that I know of.  I don't disbelieve that you observed that in your area.  I just did not personally experience it so I don't know whether that was a widespread thing or what.  I do know that the liberal (as we define it) European press was cheering them on as were the more rabid of the anti-Bush and/or anti-war protesters here and abroad.  Sort of like the same sorts of people were cheering on Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War while others of us despised what she did.
> 
> But there is a difference between a personal choice to express our personal disapproval or criticism of somebody's actions and in attempting to destroy that person's reputation, relationships, and livelihood for making a politically incorrect statement.   Most especially when no apology is deemed good enough and the mob mentality to attack and demolish continues unabated.
> 
> I have no problem with the former and I don't think you do either.  And no matter who is doing it, I have a huge problem with the latter and I hope you do too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't experience it?  I have to ask... do you listen to Country Music or that other "stuff".    j/k on the "stuff".  I generally like all kinds of music, but prefer music that tells a story.  Anyway, if you don't listen to CM, then I would expect that you would not have heard the bitching that went on.  If you do, when was the last time you heard the chicks on the radio?  Think hard!
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the mid 90's our favorite radio station went all news/talk and doesn't play any music at all.   If we listen to music at all on the radio, it will generally be golden oldies or country--both Mr. Foxfyre and I are country fans.  But we were never part of the Dixie Chick cult before their "London event" and despite a huge music collection of our own, I don't believe we have ever owned a Dixie Chick song even on a multi-artist album.   And I don't recall hearing them on the radio before or since the "London event".
> 
> They aren't on the radio these days though because they haven't recorded anything I think since 2005 or so?  The last I heard was two or three years ago they were going on tour with the Eagles and Keith Urban.   I don't know whether they've done anything since though seems I did read somewhere that the Chicks have a new album out sometime this summer?
> 
> But the point is, not I nor anybody I know in real life or in any other medium ever attacked the Dixie Chicks or tried to ruin their career.  Their comments in London were inexcusable and I condemned those remarks at the time.  But in my conservative soul, those comments didn't damn all that they have ever said or will ever say.  I don't really care whether they succeed or fail as they will not have my help either way.  And that does not have anything to do with the London event but simply with the fact that I have never been a fan.  Nor one out for their blood.
> 
> To most liberals, once they damn you, though, you are never to be forgiven anything.  You are damned and to be unforgiven forever.
Click to expand...


What difference does when the last recording was made make?  The good ones are still played all the time.  Of course, the station I listen to only seems to play recent hits.  Drives me crazy when I hear the exact same songs on the evening ride home that I heard on the way to work!  With all the good music out there, you would think variety would not be such a chore.

The way I remember it, the chicks were clobbered by Bush supporters for Natalie Maines' idiotic statement.  They are no longer producing music because of what she said.  They had a huge backing until that fateful night.  Next day, they were history.  I heard Natalie wants to go out on her own.  Good luck with that!  No one has forgiven or forgotten.

Immie


----------



## thanatos144

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't experience it?  I have to ask... do you listen to Country Music or that other "stuff".    j/k on the "stuff".  I generally like all kinds of music, but prefer music that tells a story.  Anyway, if you don't listen to CM, then I would expect that you would not have heard the bitching that went on.  If you do, when was the last time you heard the chicks on the radio?  Think hard!
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the mid 90's our favorite radio station went all news/talk and doesn't play any music at all.   If we listen to music at all on the radio, it will generally be golden oldies or country--both Mr. Foxfyre and I are country fans.  But we were never part of the Dixie Chick cult before their "London event" and despite a huge music collection of our own, I don't believe we have ever owned a Dixie Chick song even on a multi-artist album.   And I don't recall hearing them on the radio before or since the "London event".
> 
> They aren't on the radio these days though because they haven't recorded anything I think since 2005 or so?  The last I heard was two or three years ago they were going on tour with the Eagles and Keith Urban.   I don't know whether they've done anything since though seems I did read somewhere that the Chicks have a new album out sometime this summer?
> 
> But the point is, not I nor anybody I know in real life or in any other medium ever attacked the Dixie Chicks or tried to ruin their career.  Their comments in London were inexcusable and I condemned those remarks at the time.  But in my conservative soul, those comments didn't damn all that they have ever said or will ever say.  I don't really care whether they succeed or fail as they will not have my help either way.  And that does not have anything to do with the London event but simply with the fact that I have never been a fan.  Nor one out for their blood.
> 
> To most liberals, once they damn you, though, you are never to be forgiven anything.  You are damned and to be unforgiven forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does when the last recording was made make?  The good ones are still played all the time.  Of course, the station I listen to only seems to play recent hits.  Drives me crazy when I hear the exact same songs on the evening ride home that I heard on the way to work!  With all the good music out there, you would think variety would not be such a chore.
> 
> The way I remember it, the chicks were clobbered by Bush supporters for Natalie Maines' idiotic statement.  They are no longer producing music because of what she said.  They had a huge backing until that fateful night.  Next day, they were history.  I heard Natalie wants to go out on her own.  Good luck with that!  No one has forgiven or forgotten.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


it wasn't the bush comments, they got them in trouble. it was the other s*** Natalie said not to mention the feud with Toby Keith

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## Immanuel

thanatos144 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the mid 90's our favorite radio station went all news/talk and doesn't play any music at all.   If we listen to music at all on the radio, it will generally be golden oldies or country--both Mr. Foxfyre and I are country fans.  But we were never part of the Dixie Chick cult before their "London event" and despite a huge music collection of our own, I don't believe we have ever owned a Dixie Chick song even on a multi-artist album.   And I don't recall hearing them on the radio before or since the "London event".
> 
> They aren't on the radio these days though because they haven't recorded anything I think since 2005 or so?  The last I heard was two or three years ago they were going on tour with the Eagles and Keith Urban.   I don't know whether they've done anything since though seems I did read somewhere that the Chicks have a new album out sometime this summer?
> 
> But the point is, not I nor anybody I know in real life or in any other medium ever attacked the Dixie Chicks or tried to ruin their career.  Their comments in London were inexcusable and I condemned those remarks at the time.  But in my conservative soul, those comments didn't damn all that they have ever said or will ever say.  I don't really care whether they succeed or fail as they will not have my help either way.  And that does not have anything to do with the London event but simply with the fact that I have never been a fan.  Nor one out for their blood.
> 
> To most liberals, once they damn you, though, you are never to be forgiven anything.  You are damned and to be unforgiven forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does when the last recording was made make?  The good ones are still played all the time.  Of course, the station I listen to only seems to play recent hits.  Drives me crazy when I hear the exact same songs on the evening ride home that I heard on the way to work!  With all the good music out there, you would think variety would not be such a chore.
> 
> The way I remember it, the chicks were clobbered by Bush supporters for Natalie Maines' idiotic statement.  They are no longer producing music because of what she said.  They had a huge backing until that fateful night.  Next day, they were history.  I heard Natalie wants to go out on her own.  Good luck with that!  No one has forgiven or forgotten.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it wasn't the bush comments, they got them in trouble. it was the other s*** Natalie said not to mention the feud with Toby Keith
> 
> Welcome to my nightmare
Click to expand...


First, the Toby Keith feud was a direct result of what Natalie said in London.  Then after the fans turned against her she started making comments about the fans all of which was a direct result of that night in London.

Face it, if not for that one comment the Chicks would be as popular as ever despite the shitty music they played.

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, have to disagree with you.  Today's "liberalism" is nothing short of an attempt to enslave the masses.  The gay rights issue is a very good example.  Those who disagree with today's politically correct liberalism are excoriated in all aspects of society.  One who dares to say "Marriage is between one man and one woman", will be verbally flogged if not physically flogged.  Those who dare to speak out against abortion are as well and are accused of wanting to keep a woman "barefoot and pregnant".  God help the man or woman who says that contraceptives should not be given by middle schools or that kindergarten should not be teaching sex education!
> 
> I can't and won't say that was liberalism from day one, but it is most definitely what conservatives have to put up with today.  I admit, conservatives aren't really all that different, but liberalism as it stands today is nothing short of forced enslavement of the masses.  Maybe you like to think that it is different because you support their causes, but don't you dare disagree with them on any subject.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Immie. Liberalism is an attempt to FREE the masses. EVERY man or woman has the right to fall in love with who THEY choose, not who conservatives deem acceptable. EVERY woman has the right to decide what SHE chooses to do with her uterus, not what conservatives deem she can do with her uterus and her life.
> 
> Conservatives have the right to their opinion, but not the right to write laws that TAKE AWAY people's rights.
> 
> Conservatives have launched a frontal assault on unions, public employees, women's rights, immigrants, the environment, health care, voting rights, food safety, pensions, prenatal care, science, public broadcasting, and on and on.
> 
> Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you even understand what conservative actually means or what it is to conserve? because quite frankly you don't sound like you know much of anything
> 
> Welcome to my nightmare
Click to expand...


I know exactly what conservatism is all about...

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Immie. Liberalism is an attempt to FREE the masses. EVERY man or woman has the right to fall in love with who THEY choose, not who conservatives deem acceptable. EVERY woman has the right to decide what SHE chooses to do with her uterus, not what conservatives deem she can do with her uterus and her life.
> 
> Conservatives have the right to their opinion, but not the right to write laws that TAKE AWAY people's rights.
> 
> Conservatives have launched a frontal assault on unions, public employees, women's rights, immigrants, the environment, health care, voting rights, food safety, pensions, prenatal care, science, public broadcasting, and on and on.
> 
> Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you even understand what conservative actually means or what it is to conserve? because quite frankly you don't sound like you know much of anything
> 
> Welcome to my nightmare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know exactly what conservatism is all about...
> 
> Q: What is conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
> 
> Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
Click to expand...


Which hate group's site did you get that from?

It is probably plastered all over DU for sure.

Do you really think that kind of crap is worth reposting?  Somehow, I suspect you do.  And you probably believe your hatred is entirely justified.

Immie


----------



## tjvh

I hate all stupid people whose ideology wants to destroy my freedoms... It's that simple.


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you even understand what conservative actually means or what it is to conserve? because quite frankly you don't sound like you know much of anything
> 
> Welcome to my nightmare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what conservatism is all about...
> 
> Q: What is conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
> 
> Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which hate group's site did you get that from?
> 
> It is probably plastered all over DU for sure.
> 
> Do you really think that kind of crap is worth reposting?  Somehow, I suspect you do.  And you probably believe your hatred is entirely justified.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Immie, I not only believe it; it gets proven and reinforced every single day. Even right on this board. I NEVER hear conservatives stand up for the poor or working man and woman. Conservatives always defend the CEO, the union buster, the Republican Governor who rips away collective bargaining from teachers, forces poor people to piss in a cup, forces a woman that is raped to pay for her rape test kit, condemn and disparage anyone who is not rich, calling them lazy or scumbags.

Romney's 47% comments were SUPPORTED by conservatives. It is who and what conservatives are.


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what conservatism is all about...
> 
> Q: What is conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
> 
> Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which hate group's site did you get that from?
> 
> It is probably plastered all over DU for sure.
> 
> Do you really think that kind of crap is worth reposting?  Somehow, I suspect you do.  And you probably believe your hatred is entirely justified.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immie, I not only believe it; it gets proven and reinforced every single day. Even right on this board. I NEVER hear conservatives stand up for the poor or working man and woman. Conservatives always defend the CEO, the union buster, the Republican Governor who rips away collective bargaining from teachers, forces poor people to piss in a cup, forces a woman that is raped to pay for her rape test kit, condemn and disparage anyone who is not rich, calling them lazy or scumbags.
> 
> Romney's 47% comments were SUPPORTED by conservatives. It is who and what conservatives are.
Click to expand...


How sad that you cannot see the hypocrisy of you own words!

You must never read anything I write unless I address you.  I have spoken up for the poor many, many, many times. 

I stand up for the working man all the time.  It is you liberals and your support for union bosses that are destroying the working man.  Unions have had there place in our history and they did a lot and I do mean a LOT of good for the middle class, but what you liberals support today is pure unadulterated corruption not only in union halls, but on Capital Hill as well.  You want to defend the working class?  Then work against the corruption that has seeped into every aspect of your own people.

I do not defend the CEO.  They too are corrupt, but I defend the right of a corporation to, within safe reasons, sell the products of their choice, hire and fire the employees they want, pay fair market wages etc.  Your side want McDonald's to pay their employees living wages to turn hamburger patties.  That is beyond crazy! As much as I would like the father of five to succeed in life, he should not be working at McDonald's trying to support a family!  Nor should the single mother.  If she cannot work or find a job a business that pays well, then doggone it, I have no problem assisting her.  But, enabling her with Welfare and doing nothing to give her the skills she needs to improve her life (that is the liberal solution) does nothing at all to help her become anything more than a couch potato.

Let's see a link to a conservative trying to force the poor to "piss in a cup".  That is nothing more than your hatred of people that you cannot control speaking.  

Immie


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what conservatism is all about...
> 
> Q: What is conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
> 
> Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which hate group's site did you get that from?
> 
> It is probably plastered all over DU for sure.
> 
> Do you really think that kind of crap is worth reposting?  Somehow, I suspect you do.  And you probably believe your hatred is entirely justified.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immie, I not only believe it; it gets proven and reinforced every single day. Even right on this board. I NEVER hear conservatives stand up for the poor or working man and woman. Conservatives always defend the CEO, the union buster, the Republican Governor who rips away collective bargaining from teachers, forces poor people to piss in a cup, forces a woman that is raped to pay for her rape test kit, condemn and disparage anyone who is not rich, calling them lazy or scumbags.
> 
> Romney's 47% comments were SUPPORTED by conservatives. It is who and what conservatives are.
Click to expand...


No, they were supported by neocons and idiot conservatives who think that getting a neocon elected is more important than being honest and truthful.

And AMERICAN conservatives are not pro-Aristocracy as it is not part of our heritage, as it is in Europe. The Neocons like aristocrats because they think of themselves this way.


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which hate group's site did you get that from?
> 
> It is probably plastered all over DU for sure.
> 
> Do you really think that kind of crap is worth reposting?  Somehow, I suspect you do.  And you probably believe your hatred is entirely justified.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, I not only believe it; it gets proven and reinforced every single day. Even right on this board. I NEVER hear conservatives stand up for the poor or working man and woman. Conservatives always defend the CEO, the union buster, the Republican Governor who rips away collective bargaining from teachers, forces poor people to piss in a cup, forces a woman that is raped to pay for her rape test kit, condemn and disparage anyone who is not rich, calling them lazy or scumbags.
> 
> Romney's 47% comments were SUPPORTED by conservatives. It is who and what conservatives are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How sad that you cannot see the hypocrisy of you own words!
> 
> You must never read anything I write unless I address you.  I have spoken up for the poor many, many, many times.
> 
> I stand up for the working man all the time.  It is you liberals and your support for union bosses that are destroying the working man.  Unions have had there place in our history and they did a lot and I do mean a LOT of good for the middle class, but what you liberals support today is pure unadulterated corruption not only in union halls, but on Capital Hill as well.  You want to defend the working class?  Then work against the corruption that has seeped into every aspect of your own people.
> 
> I do not defend the CEO.  They too are corrupt, but I defend the right of a corporation to, within safe reasons, sell the products of their choice, hire and fire the employees they want, pay fair market wages etc.  Your side want McDonald's to pay their employees living wages to turn hamburger patties.  That is beyond crazy! As much as I would like the father of five to succeed in life, he should not be working at McDonald's trying to support a family!  Nor should the single mother.  If she cannot work or find a job a business that pays well, then doggone it, I have no problem assisting her.  But, enabling her with Welfare and doing nothing to give her the skills she needs to improve her life (that is the liberal solution) does nothing at all to help her become anything more than a couch potato.
> 
> Let's see a link to a conservative trying to force the poor to "piss in a cup".  That is nothing more than your hatred of people that you cannot control speaking.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Immie, I give you and YOU alone credit for being a moderate conservative for the most part. But even you are parroting some right wing dogma and propaganda in your reply. The problem in this country is the middle class is being crushed. I've been around since Truman was in the White House. The liberal era that started with the New Deal and ended with the Great Society created the most robust middle class in the world. I never knew anyone growing up who needed food stamps or government relief. People made a living wage in this country. 

That liberal era ended with the splintering of the Democratic Party due to assassinations and the Vietnam War. It ushered in a conservative era that gained some momentum with Nixon, but really metastasized under Reagan. Reagan just about wiped out the New Deal and it has almost eviscerated the middle class. The wealth disparity in America is now worse than the Gilded Age when the Robber Barons paid workers slave wages. And what that conservative era has created is POVERTY for all but a very few Americans. And the main vehicle to creating that aristocracy was union busting. It has become the priority of the Republican party and it no coincidence that as unions were being eviscerated, so was the middle class. There will NEVER be a time where unions are no longer needed. Greed and power will never disappear or be kept in check without a buffer.

And they have brainwashed even you into believing unions and liberals are EVIL. You used words like "pure unadulterated corruption". You were indignant when I said "Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy." But that REALLY happened. And how is your "pure unadulterated corruption" and "corruption that has seeped into every aspect of your own people." NOT incendiary Immie?  

I offered the Bill Moyers interview with Reverend Wright a few years ago to every conservative on this board. You are the ONLY one who would even listen to it.

Please spend 12 minutes listening to Greg Kaufmann, poverty correspondent for The Nation magazine. And BTW, he does not give Democrats a pass either.

Greg Kaufmann on the Truth About American Poverty | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com






Small excerpt:

BILL MOYERS: There are almost 48 million people using food stamps a day, and over recent years thats a 70 percent increase. What does your own reporting tell you about why?

GREG KAUFMANN: Well, the biggest reason, I think, is the proliferation of low-wage work. People are working and they're not getting paid enough to feed their families, pay their utilities and pay for their housing, pay for the healthcare. We had 28 percent of workers in 2011 made wages that were less than the poverty line. Poverty wages.

Fifty percent of the jobs in this country make less than $34,000 a year. Twenty-five percent make less than the poverty line for a family of four, which is $23,000 a year. So, if you're not paying people enough to pay for the basics, they're going to need help getting food.

And food stamps expanded because we went through the greatest the worst recession since the Great Depression. And it did what it's supposed to do. And now, you know, mostly Republicans are saying, "Why are there so many people on food stamps?" You know, they're claiming the recession's over, but we know that most people on food stamps are, if they're getting work, it's low-wage work that doesn't pay enough to pay for food.






Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.
Charles Krauthammer


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Not surprisingly, Liberals have to lie about Conservatism


----------



## Bfgrn

CrusaderFrank said:


> Not surprisingly, Liberals have to lie about Conservatism



CrusaderFrank and friends


----------



## CrusaderFrank

5 years of Progressive economics and we're still having more people on food stamps than ever.

duh.

It's meant to fail!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprisingly, Liberals have to lie about Conservatism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank and friends
Click to expand...


See Liberals

See Liberals lie

Lie, Liberal, lie


----------



## JimBowie1958

CrusaderFrank said:


> 5 years of Progressive economics and we're still having more people on food stamps than ever.
> 
> duh.
> 
> It's meant to fail!



Dude, you don't seriously think the libtards are trying to work themselves out of a job, now do you?


----------



## HUGGY

I don't see the irregularity in Bowie's sig and his posts here on USMB.  The GOP has been voting against the best interests of thier constituants fo the last 50 years.  This is specifically aimed at him because having spent some time in Fredricksburg VA I can attest it to be one of the cesspools of thought in our country.  Per capita it's residents are one of the most willfully ignorant communities I have ever wasted time in.  Those morons are still fighting the civil war and are the most racist Americans I have come accoss in my 64 years.


----------



## JimBowie1958

HUGGY said:


> I don't see the irregularity in Bowie's sig and his posts here on USMB.  The GOP has been voting against the best interests of thier constituants fo the last 50 years.  This is specifically aimed at him because having spent some time in Fredricksburg VA I can attest it to be one of the cesspools of thought in our country.  Per capita it's residents are one of the most willfully ignorant communities I have ever wasted time in.  Those morons are still fighting the civil war and are the most racist Americans I have come accoss in my 64 years.



lol, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

We have Mary Washington University here, sco, and its like the Virginia capital of fruits, gugs, bugs and lugs. A cesspool of conservatism it is not, not by far.

Most of the jar heads are north in Stafford Co, and the Navy folks mostly in Spotsy and King George. Few of the live in Fredericksburg, aka F-burg.

And yes, the GOP says a lot of bullshit to get people to vote for them, and I say bullshit because the elite in control of the GOP has absolutely no intention of letting any of their promises become law unless it benefits wealthy corporate CEOs. 

I finally figured this out when Bush the Elder was President and started setting up the fascist system that they are slowly rolling out. I was even more outraged by the take over of the Presidential debates by the two parties who now systematically keep everyone else out of the debates. Those debates should have zero credibility and yet the major media acts like it is really a neutral ground for debating anything.

But talking conservatives into leaving the GOP is hard to do. The two parties demonize each other for many reasons, but chief among those reasons is to scare the beejeezus out of anyone that might consider voting for someone that really reflects what they believe in. That is ironically called 'throwing away your vote'.

But if you think the Democrats are any more committed to work for the working class instead of other elites that just aren't WASP, then you aren't paying attention.


----------



## Bfgrn

JimBowie1958 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which hate group's site did you get that from?
> 
> It is probably plastered all over DU for sure.
> 
> Do you really think that kind of crap is worth reposting?  Somehow, I suspect you do.  And you probably believe your hatred is entirely justified.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, I not only believe it; it gets proven and reinforced every single day. Even right on this board. I NEVER hear conservatives stand up for the poor or working man and woman. Conservatives always defend the CEO, the union buster, the Republican Governor who rips away collective bargaining from teachers, forces poor people to piss in a cup, forces a woman that is raped to pay for her rape test kit, condemn and disparage anyone who is not rich, calling them lazy or scumbags.
> 
> Romney's 47% comments were SUPPORTED by conservatives. It is who and what conservatives are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they were supported by neocons and idiot conservatives who think that getting a neocon elected is more important than being honest and truthful.
> 
> And AMERICAN conservatives are not pro-Aristocracy as it is not part of our heritage, as it is in Europe. The Neocons like aristocrats because they think of themselves this way.
Click to expand...


Like I said before, I've been around since Truman was in the White House. Any changes in conservatism over the last 65 years have been for the worse, not the better...

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948,  St. Paul, Minnesota


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, I not only believe it; it gets proven and reinforced every single day. Even right on this board. I NEVER hear conservatives stand up for the poor or working man and woman. Conservatives always defend the CEO, the union buster, the Republican Governor who rips away collective bargaining from teachers, forces poor people to piss in a cup, forces a woman that is raped to pay for her rape test kit, condemn and disparage anyone who is not rich, calling them lazy or scumbags.
> 
> Romney's 47% comments were SUPPORTED by conservatives. It is who and what conservatives are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they were supported by neocons and idiot conservatives who think that getting a neocon elected is more important than being honest and truthful.
> 
> And AMERICAN conservatives are not pro-Aristocracy as it is not part of our heritage, as it is in Europe. The Neocons like aristocrats because they think of themselves this way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said before, I've been around since Truman was in the White House. Any changes in conservatism over the last 65 years have been for the worse, not the better...
> 
> "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
> President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948,  St. Paul, Minnesota
Click to expand...


Do you mean the same Harry Truman who pushed for civil rights that was blocked by Democrats like John F Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson?

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## thanatos144

I guess LBJ was right he did " get those n****** to vote Democrat for decades" right liberals?

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## Wake

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



"Hate" is a strong word.

Just as there are some varying, negative qualities among conservatives, there are those among liberals.

Lastly, some liberals are known to make very biased assertions, much like their counterparts.


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, I not only believe it; it gets proven and reinforced every single day. Even right on this board. I NEVER hear conservatives stand up for the poor or working man and woman. Conservatives always defend the CEO, the union buster, the Republican Governor who rips away collective bargaining from teachers, forces poor people to piss in a cup, forces a woman that is raped to pay for her rape test kit, condemn and disparage anyone who is not rich, calling them lazy or scumbags.
> 
> Romney's 47% comments were SUPPORTED by conservatives. It is who and what conservatives are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How sad that you cannot see the hypocrisy of you own words!
> 
> You must never read anything I write unless I address you.  I have spoken up for the poor many, many, many times.
> 
> I stand up for the working man all the time.  It is you liberals and your support for union bosses that are destroying the working man.  Unions have had there place in our history and they did a lot and I do mean a LOT of good for the middle class, but what you liberals support today is pure unadulterated corruption not only in union halls, but on Capital Hill as well.  You want to defend the working class?  Then work against the corruption that has seeped into every aspect of your own people.
> 
> I do not defend the CEO.  They too are corrupt, but I defend the right of a corporation to, within safe reasons, sell the products of their choice, hire and fire the employees they want, pay fair market wages etc.  Your side want McDonald's to pay their employees living wages to turn hamburger patties.  That is beyond crazy! As much as I would like the father of five to succeed in life, he should not be working at McDonald's trying to support a family!  Nor should the single mother.  If she cannot work or find a job a business that pays well, then doggone it, I have no problem assisting her.  But, enabling her with Welfare and doing nothing to give her the skills she needs to improve her life (that is the liberal solution) does nothing at all to help her become anything more than a couch potato.
> 
> Let's see a link to a conservative trying to force the poor to "piss in a cup".  That is nothing more than your hatred of people that you cannot control speaking.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immie, I give you and YOU alone credit for being a moderate conservative for the most part. But even you are parroting some right wing dogma and propaganda in your reply. The problem in this country is the middle class is being crushed. I've been around since Truman was in the White House. The liberal era that started with the New Deal and ended with the Great Society created the most robust middle class in the world. I never knew anyone growing up who needed food stamps or government relief. People made a living wage in this country.
> 
> That liberal era ended with the splintering of the Democratic Party due to assassinations and the Vietnam War. It ushered in a conservative era that gained some momentum with Nixon, but really metastasized under Reagan. Reagan just about wiped out the New Deal and it has almost eviscerated the middle class. The wealth disparity in America is now worse than the Gilded Age when the Robber Barons paid workers slave wages. And what that conservative era has created is POVERTY for all but a very few Americans. And the main vehicle to creating that aristocracy was union busting. It has become the priority of the Republican party and it no coincidence that as unions were being eviscerated, so was the middle class. There will NEVER be a time where unions are no longer needed. Greed and power will never disappear or be kept in check without a buffer.
> 
> And they have brainwashed even you into believing unions and liberals are EVIL. You used words like "pure unadulterated corruption". You were indignant when I said "Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy." But that REALLY happened. And how is your "pure unadulterated corruption" and "corruption that has seeped into every aspect of your own people." NOT incendiary Immie?
> 
> I offered the Bill Moyers interview with Reverend Wright a few years ago to every conservative on this board. You are the ONLY one who would even listen to it.
> 
> Please spend 12 minutes listening to Greg Kaufmann, poverty correspondent for The Nation magazine. And BTW, he does not give Democrats a pass either.
> 
> Greg Kaufmann on the Truth About American Poverty | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Small excerpt:
> 
> BILL MOYERS: There are almost 48 million people using food stamps a day, and over recent years thats a 70 percent increase. What does your own reporting tell you about why?
> 
> GREG KAUFMANN: Well, the biggest reason, I think, is the proliferation of low-wage work. People are working and they're not getting paid enough to feed their families, pay their utilities and pay for their housing, pay for the healthcare. We had 28 percent of workers in 2011 made wages that were less than the poverty line. Poverty wages.
> 
> Fifty percent of the jobs in this country make less than $34,000 a year. Twenty-five percent make less than the poverty line for a family of four, which is $23,000 a year. So, if you're not paying people enough to pay for the basics, they're going to need help getting food.
> 
> And food stamps expanded because we went through the greatest the worst recession since the Great Depression. And it did what it's supposed to do. And now, you know, mostly Republicans are saying, "Why are there so many people on food stamps?" You know, they're claiming the recession's over, but we know that most people on food stamps are, if they're getting work, it's low-wage work that doesn't pay enough to pay for food.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.
> Charles Krauthammer
Click to expand...


I am only checking in while at lunch.

I can't listen at the moment.  If I remember later, I will come back to this.

If you would simply step back and read your own posts critically, you would see that you are no different than the aforementioned neo-cons.  You are as controlling and intolerant as they are.

The "liberal era" has never ended.  We are living the results of the catastrophe they flung on us today.  The so called aristocracy you are condemning are the liberal politicians and those who support them of today.  Until and unless we put a little bit of conservative (fiscal as well as social) sanity into our government, this country is doomed.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, I not only believe it; it gets proven and reinforced every single day. Even right on this board. I NEVER hear conservatives stand up for the poor or working man and woman. Conservatives always defend the CEO, the union buster, the Republican Governor who rips away collective bargaining from teachers, forces poor people to piss in a cup, forces a woman that is raped to pay for her rape test kit, condemn and disparage anyone who is not rich, calling them lazy or scumbags.
> 
> Romney's 47% comments were SUPPORTED by conservatives. It is who and what conservatives are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they were supported by neocons and idiot conservatives who think that getting a neocon elected is more important than being honest and truthful.
> 
> And AMERICAN conservatives are not pro-Aristocracy as it is not part of our heritage, as it is in Europe. The Neocons like aristocrats because they think of themselves this way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said before, I've been around since Truman was in the White House. Any changes in conservatism over the last 65 years have been for the worse, not the better...
> 
> "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
> President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948,  St. Paul, Minnesota
Click to expand...


That is something I can definitely agree with.  The changes in conservatism have most definitely been for the worse because they took a very sharp left turn!

Immie


----------



## Foxfyre

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they were supported by neocons and idiot conservatives who think that getting a neocon elected is more important than being honest and truthful.
> 
> And AMERICAN conservatives are not pro-Aristocracy as it is not part of our heritage, as it is in Europe. The Neocons like aristocrats because they think of themselves this way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before, I've been around since Truman was in the White House. Any changes in conservatism over the last 65 years have been for the worse, not the better...
> 
> "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
> President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948,  St. Paul, Minnesota
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is something I can definitely agree with.  The changes in conservatism have most definitely been for the worse because they took a very sharp left turn!
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Gentle correction.  Many in politics who CALL themselves conservatives or who are so branded by the left have taken a sharp left turn.  They are CINOs, not conservatives.  Those who promote ever more government involvement in everything are not conservatives.  Those who compromise their values for political expediency are not conservatives.

Modern American Conservatives, of whom I proudly consider myself one, as are those like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams,  Rand Paul, Paul Ryan,  Dinesh D'Souza, David Horowitz, Laura Ingraham, Shelby Steele, and many many others.  Modern American Conservatism is still alive and well, but is definitely an endangered species if we do not step forward and defend it.


----------



## Dragonlady

Foxfyre said:


> Modern American Conservatives, of whom I proudly consider myself one, as are those like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams,  Rand Paul, Paul Ryan,  Dinesh D'Souza, David Horowitz, Laura Ingraham, Shelby Steele, and many many others.  Modern American Conservatism is still alive and well, but is definitely an endangered species if we do not step forward and defend it.



Radical conservatism is a failed ideology as is radical communism.  Extremes of any ideology just don't work.  In a country of 300 million, it's ridiculous to think that small government will work.  

While Americans are busy fighting for conservative ideals, their country is economically parallized by political infighting, allowing other countries to move ahead of the US in education, medical care for their citizens, manufacturing, and quality of life.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern American Conservatives, of whom I proudly consider myself one, as are those like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams,  Rand Paul, Paul Ryan,  Dinesh D'Souza, David Horowitz, Laura Ingraham, Shelby Steele, and many many others.  Modern American Conservatism is still alive and well, but is definitely an endangered species if we do not step forward and defend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radical conservatism is a failed ideology as is radical communism.  Extremes of any ideology just don't work.  In a country of 300 million, it's ridiculous to think that small government will work.
> 
> While Americans are busy fighting for conservative ideals, their country is economically parallized by political infighting, allowing other countries to move ahead of the US in education, medical care for their citizens, manufacturing, and quality of life.
Click to expand...


Radical conservatism, aka classical liberalism as the Founders expressed it, worked just fine for more roughly 170 or so years and created the most free, most generous, most prosperous, and most creative, most innovative nation the world has ever known.  We had the world's best education system, the world's best medical system, and the widest variety of choices, options, and opportunities of any people who have ever existed.

But once the effects of moving back toward a big, authoritarian, intrusive, meddling, and freedom destroying government began kicking in noticably in the 1960's and has escalated since then.  And our education system, our healthcare swystem, and many other quality of life issues have steadily deteriorated since that time.

Legacies are sometimes several decades being fully realized.  But corruption of the Founders' sense of 'radical conservatism' has yet to produce a positive legacy.


----------



## peach174

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern American Conservatives, of whom I proudly consider myself one, as are those like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams,  Rand Paul, Paul Ryan,  Dinesh D'Souza, David Horowitz, Laura Ingraham, Shelby Steele, and many many others.  Modern American Conservatism is still alive and well, but is definitely an endangered species if we do not step forward and defend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radical conservatism is a failed ideology as is radical communism.  Extremes of any ideology just don't work.  In a country of 300 million, it's ridiculous to think that small government will work.
> 
> While Americans are busy fighting for conservative ideals, their country is economically parallized by political infighting, allowing other countries to move ahead of the US in education, medical care for their citizens, manufacturing, and quality of life.
Click to expand...



Big government does not work. This is exactly why it is not working now, all this bigger government is doing is taking away all of our civil rights.
It has become so big that it is unmanageable.


----------



## Immanuel

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before, I've been around since Truman was in the White House. Any changes in conservatism over the last 65 years have been for the worse, not the better...
> 
> "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
> President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948,  St. Paul, Minnesota
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is something I can definitely agree with.  The changes in conservatism have most definitely been for the worse because they took a very sharp left turn!
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gentle correction.  Many in politics who CALL themselves conservatives or who are so branded by the left have taken a sharp left turn.  They are CINOs, not conservatives.  Those who promote ever more government involvement in everything are not conservatives.  Those who compromise their values for political expediency are not conservatives.
> 
> Modern American Conservatives, of whom I proudly consider myself one, as are those like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams,  Rand Paul, Paul Ryan,  Dinesh D'Souza, David Horowitz, Laura Ingraham, Shelby Steele, and many many others.  Modern American Conservatism is still alive and well, but is definitely an endangered species if we do not step forward and defend it.
Click to expand...


I notice none of those you listed are politicians.

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they were supported by neocons and idiot conservatives who think that getting a neocon elected is more important than being honest and truthful.
> 
> And AMERICAN conservatives are not pro-Aristocracy as it is not part of our heritage, as it is in Europe. The Neocons like aristocrats because they think of themselves this way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before, I've been around since Truman was in the White House. Any changes in conservatism over the last 65 years have been for the worse, not the better...
> 
> "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
> President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948,  St. Paul, Minnesota
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is something I can definitely agree with.  The changes in conservatism have most definitely been for the worse because they took a very sharp left turn!
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Come on Immie. No one in their right mind believes the GOP turned left. Certainly not Barry Goldwater.

You really need to study history. Read up on Eisenhower...

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this countrythey are America." 
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower


----------



## Uncensored2008

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is something I can definitely agree with.  The changes in conservatism have most definitely been for the worse because they took a very sharp left turn!
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gentle correction.  Many in politics who CALL themselves conservatives or who are so branded by the left have taken a sharp left turn.  They are CINOs, not conservatives.  Those who promote ever more government involvement in everything are not conservatives.  Those who compromise their values for political expediency are not conservatives.
> 
> Modern American Conservatives, of whom I proudly consider myself one, as are those like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams,  Rand Paul, Paul Ryan,  Dinesh D'Souza, David Horowitz, Laura Ingraham, Shelby Steele, and many many others.  Modern American Conservatism is still alive and well, but is definitely an endangered species if we do not step forward and defend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice none of those you listed are politicians.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Rand Paul. Paul Ryan?


----------



## Immanuel

Uncensored2008 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gentle correction.  Many in politics who CALL themselves conservatives or who are so branded by the left have taken a sharp left turn.  They are CINOs, not conservatives.  Those who promote ever more government involvement in everything are not conservatives.  Those who compromise their values for political expediency are not conservatives.
> 
> Modern American Conservatives, of whom I proudly consider myself one, as are those like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams,  Rand Paul, Paul Ryan,  Dinesh D'Souza, David Horowitz, Laura Ingraham, Shelby Steele, and many many others.  Modern American Conservatism is still alive and well, but is definitely an endangered species if we do not step forward and defend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice none of those you listed are politicians.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rand Paul. Paul Ryan?
Click to expand...


Whoops you are right.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before, I've been around since Truman was in the White House. Any changes in conservatism over the last 65 years have been for the worse, not the better...
> 
> "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
> President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948,  St. Paul, Minnesota
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is something I can definitely agree with.  The changes in conservatism have most definitely been for the worse because they took a very sharp left turn!
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on Immie. No one in their right mind believes the GOP turned left. Certainly not Barry Goldwater.
> 
> You really need to study history. Read up on Eisenhower...
> 
> "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this countrythey are America."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Click to expand...


What is the matter?  Why Can't you just admit that the left has totally f'd up the entire world?  The GOP is nothing close to being conservative.  It is just more big spending liberal politicians who talk a piss poor game of conservatism.  Your condemnation of them is actually a condemnation of your own desires.

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is something I can definitely agree with.  The changes in conservatism have most definitely been for the worse because they took a very sharp left turn!
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Immie. No one in their right mind believes the GOP turned left. Certainly not Barry Goldwater.
> 
> You really need to study history. Read up on Eisenhower...
> 
> "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this countrythey are America."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the matter?  Why Can't you just admit that the left has totally f'd up the entire world?  The GOP is nothing close to being conservative.  It is just more big spending liberal politicians who talk a piss poor game of conservatism.  Your condemnation of them is actually a condemnation of your own desires.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


You are totally delusional Immie.

George W. Bush was the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever. He governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."


----------



## KevinWestern

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Immie. No one in their right mind believes the GOP turned left. Certainly not Barry Goldwater.
> 
> You really need to study history. Read up on Eisenhower...
> 
> "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this countrythey are America."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the matter?  Why Can't you just admit that the left has totally f'd up the entire world?  The GOP is nothing close to being conservative.  It is just more big spending liberal politicians who talk a piss poor game of conservatism.  Your condemnation of them is actually a condemnation of your own desires.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are totally delusional Immie.
> 
> George W. Bush was the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever. He governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."
Click to expand...



Where does the Patriot Act (and a rapid expansion of Executive power) fit into that description? 

Where does excessive and irresponsible spending to fund a $3 Trillion war with a country that never attacked you (you can be hawkish, but irrationally hawkish?), during a period of massive revenue decreases fall into Conservative philosophy? 

Or No Child Left Behind?


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Immie. No one in their right mind believes the GOP turned left. Certainly not Barry Goldwater.
> 
> You really need to study history. Read up on Eisenhower...
> 
> "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this countrythey are America."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the matter?  Why Can't you just admit that the left has totally f'd up the entire world?  The GOP is nothing close to being conservative.  It is just more big spending liberal politicians who talk a piss poor game of conservatism.  Your condemnation of them is actually a condemnation of your own desires.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are totally delusional Immie.
> 
> George W. Bush was the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever. He governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."
Click to expand...


Bush conservative? LOL. With his spending?  Talk about delusional!  What on earth did he do that can even remotely be considered conservative?

Maybe Bush is to the right of someone who is overtly pushing socialism, Obama, but that by no means makes him conservative.  Bigger government is a liberal desire not conservative.  Bush/Cheney worked to expand government not shrink it.  Authoritarian control of the masses is the goal of liberalism... I remind you of the patriot act, NSA wiretapping and Obamacare.  These three issues are all liberal efforts to control us.

Bush a conservative LOL, next you will be telling us Romney and Kerry are conservative.

Truth is Clinton was much more conservative than Bush.

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the matter?  Why Can't you just admit that the left has totally f'd up the entire world?  The GOP is nothing close to being conservative.  It is just more big spending liberal politicians who talk a piss poor game of conservatism.  Your condemnation of them is actually a condemnation of your own desires.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are totally delusional Immie.
> 
> George W. Bush was the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever. He governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush conservative? LOL. With his spending?  Talk about delusional!  What on earth did he do that can even remotely be considered conservative?
> 
> Maybe Bush is to the right of someone who is overtly pushing socialism, Obama, but that by no means makes him conservative.  Bigger government is a liberal desire not conservative.  Bush/Cheney worked to expand government not shrink it.  Authoritarian control of the masses is the goal of liberalism... I remind you of the patriot act, NSA wiretapping and Obamacare.  These three issues are all liberal efforts to control us.
> 
> Bush a conservative LOL, next you will be telling us Romney and Kerry are conservative.
> 
> Truth is Clinton was much more conservative than Bush.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Immie, I can understand you not wanting to get any of that shit on your shoes, but you are really being deceitful by trying to blame liberals for what conservatives have done. I sure as hell didn't hear any conservatives critical of Bush and Cheney when they were in power. I know you will say you were, and I would tend to believe YOU. But I hear that story all the time. Problem is I was on this and other boards when Bush was in office...there was not a PEEP from conservatives calling out Bush.

Liberalism is an antonym of authoritarianism. 

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

I vividly recall when liberals were in power over 30 years ago. That was a LONG time ago Immie. There was never ANY talk about debt. You know why Immie? Because liberals PAID for what they spent. 

Ronald Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.

Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)


----------



## Foxfyre

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is something I can definitely agree with.  The changes in conservatism have most definitely been for the worse because they took a very sharp left turn!
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gentle correction.  Many in politics who CALL themselves conservatives or who are so branded by the left have taken a sharp left turn.  They are CINOs, not conservatives.  Those who promote ever more government involvement in everything are not conservatives.  Those who compromise their values for political expediency are not conservatives.
> 
> Modern American Conservatives, of whom I proudly consider myself one, as are those like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams,  Rand Paul, Paul Ryan,  Dinesh D'Souza, David Horowitz, Laura Ingraham, Shelby Steele, and many many others.  Modern American Conservatism is still alive and well, but is definitely an endangered species if we do not step forward and defend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice none of those you listed are politicians.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Rand Paul and Paul Ryan are, if being in the business of politics makes one a politician, but they are a vanishing breed.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bfgrn said:


> You are totally delusional Immie.
> 
> George W. Bush was the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever.



Yes, we could tell that by his massive increase in social welfare through Medicare Part D, his attempt to open the Southern border to unlimited illegal immigration, and his international adventurism in nation building...

Why, Bush was almost as "Conservative" as Vlad Lenin or Mao Tse Tung......


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are totally delusional Immie.
> 
> George W. Bush was the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Harding&#8212;and perhaps ever. He governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush conservative? LOL. With his spending?  Talk about delusional!  What on earth did he do that can even remotely be considered conservative?
> 
> Maybe Bush is to the right of someone who is overtly pushing socialism, Obama, but that by no means makes him conservative.  Bigger government is a liberal desire not conservative.  Bush/Cheney worked to expand government not shrink it.  Authoritarian control of the masses is the goal of liberalism... I remind you of the patriot act, NSA wiretapping and Obamacare.  These three issues are all liberal efforts to control us.
> 
> Bush a conservative LOL, next you will be telling us Romney and Kerry are conservative.
> 
> Truth is Clinton was much more conservative than Bush.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immie, I can understand you not wanting to get any of that shit on your shoes, but you are really being deceitful by trying to blame liberals for what conservatives have done. I sure as hell didn't hear any conservatives critical of Bush and Cheney when they were in power. I know you will say you were, and I would tend to believe YOU. But I hear that story all the time. Problem is I was on this and other boards when Bush was in office...there was not a PEEP from conservatives calling out Bush.
> 
> Liberalism is an antonym of authoritarianism.
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
> 
> I vividly recall when liberals were in power over 30 years ago. That was a LONG time ago Immie. There was never ANY talk about debt. You know why Immie? Because liberals PAID for what they spent.
> 
> Ronald Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a &#8220;tax and spend&#8221; policy, to a &#8220;borrow and spend&#8221; policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.
> 
> &#8220;Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
> Charles Krauthammer
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> "The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
> Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher
> 
> "Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
> Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
Click to expand...




> Liberalism is an antonym of authoritarianism.



May I ask how many Hail Marys that lie will cost you?

Liberals have ruled this land since before I was born and I was born during Kennedy's Presidency.  But liberalism always blames the other guy.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gentle correction.  Many in politics who CALL themselves conservatives or who are so branded by the left have taken a sharp left turn.  They are CINOs, not conservatives.  Those who promote ever more government involvement in everything are not conservatives.  Those who compromise their values for political expediency are not conservatives.
> 
> Modern American Conservatives, of whom I proudly consider myself one, as are those like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams,  Rand Paul, Paul Ryan,  Dinesh D'Souza, David Horowitz, Laura Ingraham, Shelby Steele, and many many others.  Modern American Conservatism is still alive and well, but is definitely an endangered species if we do not step forward and defend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice none of those you listed are politicians.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rand Paul and Paul Ryan are, if being in the business of politics makes one a politician, but they are a vanishing breed.
Click to expand...


Uncensored brought that to my attention, but I don't know that I agree with you in regards to Rand Paul and despite the fact that Paul Ryan was the VP candidate last year I don't know that I can say I know all that much about him.  I was not a Romney/Ryan supporter.  I refused to vote for the "lesser of two evils" especially when it was not clear which of the two were the lesser.

Immie


----------



## Wake

Some people find some liberals annoying because some liberals race-bait, others seem to have gender issues, and some have an odd sense of equality.

Others are more sensitive, effeminate, whiny, etc. There are also liberals who are quick to judge the straight, white Christian male as the enemy. Obviously, not all liberals are this way. Some are quite likeable, or normal. 

There are some liberals who get really sore and butthurt when you have a different opinion, though.


----------



## numan

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are totally delusional Immie.
> 
> George W. Bush was the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we could tell that by his massive increase in social welfare through Medicare Part D, his attempt to open the Southern border to unlimited illegal immigration, and his international adventurism in nation building...
> 
> Why, Bush was almost as "Conservative" as Vlad Lenin or Mao Tse Tung......
Click to expand...

Thank goodness for your posting, Uncensored!!

I was beginning to think this thread was coming from Bizarro World America, where "old fashioned, rock-ribbed, solid Conservative" really means "Neo-Conservative, Nazoid, tyrannical terrorism and corruption."!!

There is at least one resemblance between Warren Harding and W. Bush, though.

Until Bush came along and beat him out hollow, Warren Harding was the most corrupt president that ever dishonored the United States.
.


----------



## thanatos144

Who carez about Bush? He isnt fucking up the country anymore Obama and all the progressives are

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## Mr. H.

I once crossed paths with a liquored-up liberal, a former friend - emphasis on former. 
I finally told her to fuck off, in her own home. 
Not been invited back since. LOL


----------



## Foxfyre

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice none of those you listed are politicians.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rand Paul and Paul Ryan are, if being in the business of politics makes one a politician, but they are a vanishing breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncensored brought that to my attention, but I don't know that I agree with you in regards to Rand Paul and despite the fact that Paul Ryan was the VP candidate last year I don't know that I can say I know all that much about him.  I was not a Romney/Ryan supporter.  I refused to vote for the "lesser of two evils" especially when it was not clear which of the two were the lesser.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


My definition of a modern American conservative is somebody who sees the responsibility of the federal government is to secure our rights, put just enough regulation into effect to allow the various states to function as one country and to prevent us from doing physical, economic, and/or environmental viiolence to each other.  Then the federal government is to leave us strictly alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have and live our lives as we choose.  Both Rand Paul and Paul Ryan understand that concept.   It has nothing at all to do with who ran for President.


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush conservative? LOL. With his spending?  Talk about delusional!  What on earth did he do that can even remotely be considered conservative?
> 
> Maybe Bush is to the right of someone who is overtly pushing socialism, Obama, but that by no means makes him conservative.  Bigger government is a liberal desire not conservative.  Bush/Cheney worked to expand government not shrink it.  Authoritarian control of the masses is the goal of liberalism... I remind you of the patriot act, NSA wiretapping and Obamacare.  These three issues are all liberal efforts to control us.
> 
> Bush a conservative LOL, next you will be telling us Romney and Kerry are conservative.
> 
> Truth is Clinton was much more conservative than Bush.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, I can understand you not wanting to get any of that shit on your shoes, but you are really being deceitful by trying to blame liberals for what conservatives have done. I sure as hell didn't hear any conservatives critical of Bush and Cheney when they were in power. I know you will say you were, and I would tend to believe YOU. But I hear that story all the time. Problem is I was on this and other boards when Bush was in office...there was not a PEEP from conservatives calling out Bush.
> 
> Liberalism is an antonym of authoritarianism.
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
> 
> I vividly recall when liberals were in power over 30 years ago. That was a LONG time ago Immie. There was never ANY talk about debt. You know why Immie? Because liberals PAID for what they spent.
> 
> Ronald Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.
> 
> Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
> Charles Krauthammer
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> "The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
> Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher
> 
> "Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
> Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is an antonym of authoritarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May I ask how many Hail Marys that lie will cost you?
> 
> Liberals have ruled this land since before I was born and I was born during Kennedy's Presidency.  But liberalism always blames the other guy.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I am really disappointed in you Immie. You are just as dishonest as the rest of the far right you 'claim' to oppose. The liberal era in America started with the New Deal and ended with the Great society. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city on the hill', the envy of the world.

That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.

Liberals PAID for what they spent through taxes. Conservatives put America on the Beijing credit card.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, I can understand you not wanting to get any of that shit on your shoes, but you are really being deceitful by trying to blame liberals for what conservatives have done. I sure as hell didn't hear any conservatives critical of Bush and Cheney when they were in power. I know you will say you were, and I would tend to believe YOU. But I hear that story all the time. Problem is I was on this and other boards when Bush was in office...there was not a PEEP from conservatives calling out Bush.
> 
> Liberalism is an antonym of authoritarianism.
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
> 
> I vividly recall when liberals were in power over 30 years ago. That was a LONG time ago Immie. There was never ANY talk about debt. You know why Immie? Because liberals PAID for what they spent.
> 
> Ronald Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.
> 
> Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
> Charles Krauthammer
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> "The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
> Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher
> 
> "Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
> Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is an antonym of authoritarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May I ask how many Hail Marys that lie will cost you?
> 
> Liberals have ruled this land since before I was born and I was born during Kennedy's Presidency.  But liberalism always blames the other guy.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am really disappointed in you Immie. You are just as dishonest as the rest of the far right you 'claim' to oppose. The liberal era in America started with the New Deal and ended with the Great society. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city on the hill', the envy of the world.
> 
> That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.
> 
> Liberals PAID for what they spent through taxes. Conservatives put America on the Beijing credit card.
Click to expand...


Your a hack

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## Bfgrn

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are totally delusional Immie.
> 
> George W. Bush was the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we could tell that by his massive increase in social welfare through Medicare Part D, his attempt to open the Southern border to unlimited illegal immigration, and his international adventurism in nation building...
> 
> Why, Bush was almost as "Conservative" as Vlad Lenin or Mao Tse Tung......
Click to expand...


Medicare Part D is a PERFECT example of conservatism. Conservatives made no provision in the bill to pay for it. Unlike the VA and Medicaid, it forbids negotiating drug prices and it is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.

It is in the conservative spirit of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask how many Hail Marys that lie will cost you?
> 
> Liberals have ruled this land since before I was born and I was born during Kennedy's Presidency.  But liberalism always blames the other guy.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am really disappointed in you Immie. You are just as dishonest as the rest of the far right you 'claim' to oppose. The liberal era in America started with the New Deal and ended with the Great society. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city on the hill', the envy of the world.
> 
> That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.
> 
> Liberals PAID for what they spent through taxes. Conservatives put America on the Beijing credit card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your a hack
> 
> Welcome to my nightmare
Click to expand...


A hack is a liar...I am telling the truth. You just don't want to hear it. The words 'national debt' and 'deficits' were not even part of our lexicon when liberals ran this country. Liberals PAID for what they spent. JFK faced a national SURPLUS. But Ronbo Reagan changed all that. 

50 years of sound economic policy was replaced with a Voodoo economic policy, you no longer pay for what you spend, you BORROW what you spend.

It took Reagan only 5 years to accomplish what it took all the Presidents combined in the 200 years before Reagan to accomplish...accumulate $1 trillion of national debt.


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush conservative? LOL. With his spending?  Talk about delusional!  What on earth did he do that can even remotely be considered conservative?
> 
> Maybe Bush is to the right of someone who is overtly pushing socialism, Obama, but that by no means makes him conservative.  Bigger government is a liberal desire not conservative.  Bush/Cheney worked to expand government not shrink it.  Authoritarian control of the masses is the goal of liberalism... I remind you of the patriot act, NSA wiretapping and Obamacare.  These three issues are all liberal efforts to control us.
> 
> Bush a conservative LOL, next you will be telling us Romney and Kerry are conservative.
> 
> Truth is Clinton was much more conservative than Bush.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, I can understand you not wanting to get any of that shit on your shoes, but you are really being deceitful by trying to blame liberals for what conservatives have done. I sure as hell didn't hear any conservatives critical of Bush and Cheney when they were in power. I know you will say you were, and I would tend to believe YOU. But I hear that story all the time. Problem is I was on this and other boards when Bush was in office...there was not a PEEP from conservatives calling out Bush.
> 
> Liberalism is an antonym of authoritarianism.
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
> 
> I vividly recall when liberals were in power over 30 years ago. That was a LONG time ago Immie. There was never ANY talk about debt. You know why Immie? Because liberals PAID for what they spent.
> 
> Ronald Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.
> 
> Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
> Charles Krauthammer
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> "The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
> Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher
> 
> "Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
> Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is an antonym of authoritarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May I ask how many Hail Marys that lie will cost you?
> 
> Liberals have ruled this land since before I was born and I was born during Kennedy's Presidency.  But liberalism always blames the other guy.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Liberals ruled this country from FDR to LBJ. Then Nixon and Reagan ushered in the conservative era.

The first thing authoritarians do is create gulags and lock people up...

Conservatives built the BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Immanuel said:


> May I ask how many Hail Marys that lie will cost you?
> 
> Liberals have ruled this land since before I was born and I was born during Kennedy's Presidency.  But liberalism always blames the other guy.
> 
> Immie



His statement might actually be true.

The thing is that Bgfrn and the democrats are not liberals - not even in the same universe as liberals. Bgfrn is a leftist.

Leftists are authoritarian. democrats are clearly authoritarian and under the tutelage of Barack Obama verge on totalitarian. Central planning requires the authority to implement said plans. Under the rule of Obama, the IRS and NSA help to enforce the will of the state.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bfgrn said:


> Medicare Part D is a PERFECT example of conservatism.



Ah yes, back to your Humpty Dumpty style of debate, where words are fluid and mean anything you like at any given second.



> Conservatives made no provision in the bill to pay for it.



Again, you simply make things up and they bear no resemblance at all to reality.

Social welfare, the socialization of charity is a leftist proposition, as socialism in general is. The concept that the state should provide medical treatment and drugs is one that would never find favor with Thomas Jefferson or Tom Payne; but Mao Tse Tung and Vlad Lenin would be major fans.

Our great lurch leftward began with Wilson, abated briefly under Reagan, and accelerated under our current ruler.



> Unlike the VA and Medicaid, it forbids negotiating drug prices and it is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.
> 
> It is in the conservative spirit of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.



As opposed to the Communist spirit of free and unfettered markets, eh Humpty?


----------



## Foxfyre

Just as who ran for president or vice president has nothing to do with the concepts expressed by Rand Paul and Paul Ryan, et al, neither does 'paying for something', by itself, have anything to do with conservatism or liberalism.  These days what government presumes to force upon the people determines whether it is modern conservatism or liberalism.

Conservatism leaves the decision with the people to work out at the local level or in the private sector.

Liberalism makes the decision for the people whether they want it or not and enforces it however the government chooses to enforce it.

No part of Medicare was a conservative concept anymore than any other authoritarian program forced upon the people is a conservative concept.

Freedom loving people, aka conservatives, despise liberalism because it assigns us the rights we will have and takes away our choices, options, opportunities, and liberties.


----------



## numan

Uncensored2008 said:


> Leftists are authoritarian. democrats are clearly authoritarian and under the tutelage of Barack Obama verge on totalitarian. Central planning requires the authority to implement said plans. Under the rule of Obama, the IRS and NSA help to enforce the will of the state.


As if there are any essential differences between Republicans and Democrats in any of these respects !! · · 

Republicans are always cheerleaders for the totalitarianism of the Military-Industrial Complex and its police-state mentality!!

Just look at the wasteful spending of the government ever since Reagan -- mainly under Republican administrations!!

Ever since Reagan, Presidents -- both Dems and Reps -- have been pliant tools of Swindlers in High Places. 

Compared to the recent spate of Presidential go-fers, Roosevelt looks as conservative as Calvin Coolidge !!

.


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> As if there are any essential differences between Republicans and Democrats in any of these respects !! · ·
> 
> Republicans are always cheerleaders for the totalitarianism of the Military-Industrial Complex and its police-state mentality!!
> 
> Just look at the wasteful spending of the government ever since Reagan -- mainly under Republican administrations!!
> 
> Ever since Reagan, Presidents -- both Dems and Reps -- have been pliant tools of Swindlers in High Places.
> 
> Compared to the recent spate of Presidential go-fers, Roosevelt looks as conservative as Calvin Coolidge !!
> 
> .



Yeah;

Not much to argue with there, sadly...


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As if there are any essential differences between Republicans and Democrats in any of these respects !! · ·
> 
> Republicans are always cheerleaders for the totalitarianism of the Military-Industrial Complex and its police-state mentality!!
> 
> Just look at the wasteful spending of the government ever since Reagan -- mainly under Republican administrations!!
> 
> Ever since Reagan, Presidents -- both Dems and Reps -- have been pliant tools of Swindlers in High Places.
> 
> Compared to the recent spate of Presidential go-fers, Roosevelt looks as conservative as Calvin Coolidge !!
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah;
> 
> Not much to argue with there, sadly...
Click to expand...


Which goes back to the partisan and/or ideological blame game.

Conservatives, as they are defined in American now, such as yourself and others here, are able to separate concepts of Democrat and Republican or other finger pointing from the principles of the concepts themselves.  We can define the terms and discuss the pros and cons of each without engaging in personalities or any other form of blame game.

Liberals, as they are defined in America now, cannot do that.


----------



## thanatos144

If we are going to assign ideology to party I will gladly be associated with the party that freed slaves and the republic (republicans ) Over the party of slavery , Jim crow laws, Segregation, the KKK, Welfare the new slavery, Socialism, and instituted racism. (democrats)



Lets not forget JFK voted against civil rights....LBJ said he would get those ******* voting democrat for decades.


----------



## Immanuel

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rand Paul and Paul Ryan are, if being in the business of politics makes one a politician, but they are a vanishing breed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored brought that to my attention, but I don't know that I agree with you in regards to Rand Paul and despite the fact that Paul Ryan was the VP candidate last year I don't know that I can say I know all that much about him.  I was not a Romney/Ryan supporter.  I refused to vote for the "lesser of two evils" especially when it was not clear which of the two were the lesser.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My definition of a modern American conservative is somebody who sees the responsibility of the federal government is to secure our rights, put just enough regulation into effect to allow the various states to function as one country and to prevent us from doing physical, economic, and/or environmental viiolence to each other.  Then the federal government is to leave us strictly alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have and live our lives as we choose.  Both Rand Paul and Paul Ryan understand that concept.   It has nothing at all to do with who ran for President.
Click to expand...


What I said about Paul Rand is that I do not know enough about him to say one way or the other.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Uncensored2008 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask how many Hail Marys that lie will cost you?
> 
> Liberals have ruled this land since before I was born and I was born during Kennedy's Presidency.  But liberalism always blames the other guy.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His statement might actually be true.
> 
> The thing is that Bgfrn and the democrats are not liberals - not even in the same universe as liberals. Bgfrn is a leftist.
> 
> Leftists are authoritarian. democrats are clearly authoritarian and under the tutelage of Barack Obama verge on totalitarian. Central planning requires the authority to implement said plans. Under the rule of Obama, the IRS and NSA help to enforce the will of the state.
Click to expand...



I won't disagree with that.  Early in this thread I stated I was speaking about progressives.  I think the conversation slipped to liberals, but we are speaking of the extremes on both sides.

Immie


----------



## thanatos144

Immanuel said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask how many Hail Marys that lie will cost you?
> 
> Liberals have ruled this land since before I was born and I was born during Kennedy's Presidency.  But liberalism always blames the other guy.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His statement might actually be true.
> 
> The thing is that Bgfrn and the democrats are not liberals - not even in the same universe as liberals. Bgfrn is a leftist.
> 
> Leftists are authoritarian. democrats are clearly authoritarian and under the tutelage of Barack Obama verge on totalitarian. Central planning requires the authority to implement said plans. Under the rule of Obama, the IRS and NSA help to enforce the will of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I won't disagree with that.  Early in this thread I stated I was speaking about progressives.  I think the conversation slipped to liberals, but we are speaking of the extremes on both sides.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


if liberals are trying to liberate us what the f*** are they bring us from? freedom? self determination?

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## thanatos144

that is liberated us from... I swear to god my f****** phone spit out wrong words

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## Bfgrn

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Medicare Part D is a PERFECT example of conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, back to your Humpty Dumpty style of debate, where words are fluid and mean anything you like at any given second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives made no provision in the bill to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you simply make things up and they bear no resemblance at all to reality.
> 
> Social welfare, the socialization of charity is a leftist proposition, as socialism in general is. The concept that the state should provide medical treatment and drugs is one that would never find favor with Thomas Jefferson or Tom Payne; but Mao Tse Tung and Vlad Lenin would be major fans.
> 
> Our great lurch leftward began with Wilson, abated briefly under Reagan, and accelerated under our current ruler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike the VA and Medicaid, it forbids negotiating drug prices and it is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.
> 
> It is in the conservative spirit of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As opposed to the Communist spirit of free and unfettered markets, eh Humpty?
Click to expand...


You REALLY aren't paying attention, or you're not smart enough to follow along. I suspect the latter. 

Conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of less government is less Democrats in government. Conservatives have no problem spending a LOT of taxpayer's money, as long as corporations can suck the tit of government. Like big Pharma and insurance cartels who make a windfall off Medicare D.

1) Medicare Part D is a PERFECT example of conservatism.

Part D is not in fact an entitlement program; it really isn't even a benefit provided by the government. It's a program subsidized (and nominally run) by the government in which people buy prescription drug insurance policies provided by private companies.

2) Conservatives made no provision in the bill to pay for it.

The chief actuary of Medicare, Rick Foster, had scored the legislation as costing more than $500 billion. The Bush administration suppressed his report, in a move the Government Accounting Office later judged "illegal.

3) Unlike the VA and Medicaid, it forbids negotiating drug prices and it is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.

By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40% and 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.

Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window".

4) It is in the conservative spirit of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress. A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bfgrn said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Medicare Part D is a PERFECT example of conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, back to your Humpty Dumpty style of debate, where words are fluid and mean anything you like at any given second.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you simply make things up and they bear no resemblance at all to reality.
> 
> Social welfare, the socialization of charity is a leftist proposition, as socialism in general is. The concept that the state should provide medical treatment and drugs is one that would never find favor with Thomas Jefferson or Tom Payne; but Mao Tse Tung and Vlad Lenin would be major fans.
> 
> Our great lurch leftward began with Wilson, abated briefly under Reagan, and accelerated under our current ruler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike the VA and Medicaid, it forbids negotiating drug prices and it is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.
> 
> It is in the conservative spirit of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As opposed to the Communist spirit of free and unfettered markets, eh Humpty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You REALLY aren't paying attention, or you're not smart enough to follow along. I suspect the latter.
> 
> Conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of less government is less Democrats in government. Conservatives have no problem spending a LOT of taxpayer's money, as long as corporations can suck the tit of government. Like big Pharma and insurance cartels who make a windfall off Medicare D.
> 
> 1) Medicare Part D is a PERFECT example of conservatism.
> 
> Part D is not in fact an entitlement program; it really isn't even a benefit provided by the government. It's a program subsidized (and nominally run) by the government in which people buy prescription drug insurance policies provided by private companies.
> 
> 2) Conservatives made no provision in the bill to pay for it.
> 
> The chief actuary of Medicare, Rick Foster, had scored the legislation as costing more than $500 billion. The Bush administration suppressed his report, in a move the Government Accounting Office later judged "illegal.
> 
> 3) Unlike the VA and Medicaid, it forbids negotiating drug prices and it is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.
> 
> By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40% and 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.
> 
> Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window".
> 
> 4) It is in the conservative spirit of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.
> 
> Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress. A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.
Click to expand...


I cannot blame you for being confused. Though these things are opposed to conservatism, the GOP keeps putting in candidates that are NEOCONSERVATIVES and Bush was labeled by the GOP leaders a conservative. And he was but only in a knee-jerk way. He daily did things that were NOT conservative at all.

Unfortunately, if you want to know what conservatives espouse you cant learn that by looking at what these neocons do in office, but you have to read it from the pundits and more reflective conservative academes, the few still remaining anyway.


----------



## Bfgrn

JimBowie1958 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, back to your Humpty Dumpty style of debate, where words are fluid and mean anything you like at any given second.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you simply make things up and they bear no resemblance at all to reality.
> 
> Social welfare, the socialization of charity is a leftist proposition, as socialism in general is. The concept that the state should provide medical treatment and drugs is one that would never find favor with Thomas Jefferson or Tom Payne; but Mao Tse Tung and Vlad Lenin would be major fans.
> 
> Our great lurch leftward began with Wilson, abated briefly under Reagan, and accelerated under our current ruler.
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to the Communist spirit of free and unfettered markets, eh Humpty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You REALLY aren't paying attention, or you're not smart enough to follow along. I suspect the latter.
> 
> Conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of less government is less Democrats in government. Conservatives have no problem spending a LOT of taxpayer's money, as long as corporations can suck the tit of government. Like big Pharma and insurance cartels who make a windfall off Medicare D.
> 
> 1) Medicare Part D is a PERFECT example of conservatism.
> 
> Part D is not in fact an entitlement program; it really isn't even a benefit provided by the government. It's a program subsidized (and nominally run) by the government in which people buy prescription drug insurance policies provided by private companies.
> 
> 2) Conservatives made no provision in the bill to pay for it.
> 
> The chief actuary of Medicare, Rick Foster, had scored the legislation as costing more than $500 billion. The Bush administration suppressed his report, in a move the Government Accounting Office later judged "illegal.
> 
> 3) Unlike the VA and Medicaid, it forbids negotiating drug prices and it is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.
> 
> By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40% and 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.
> 
> Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window".
> 
> 4) It is in the conservative spirit of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.
> 
> Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress. A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot blame you for being confused. Though these things are opposed to conservatism, the GOP keeps putting in candidates that are NEOCONSERVATIVES and Bush was labeled by the GOP leaders a conservative. And he was but only in a knee-jerk way. He daily did things that were NOT conservative at all.
> 
> Unfortunately, if you want to know what conservatives espouse you cant learn that by looking at what these neocons do in office, but you have to read it from the pundits and more reflective conservative academes, the few still remaining anyway.
Click to expand...


Yea, when Bush was in office you right wing 'conservatives' were cheerleaders shaking pom-poms. NOW, after the smoke has cleared, we are able to see the carnage of 8 years of utter failure you want that shit off your shoes...

Sorry, I am not buying ONE word of your bullshit. I talked to thousands of you so called 'conservatives' during the Bush regime. There was not a PEEP from you folks that was critical...

Was Reagan a 'conservative'?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You REALLY aren't paying attention, or you're not smart enough to follow along. I suspect the latter.
> 
> Conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of less government is less Democrats in government. Conservatives have no problem spending a LOT of taxpayer's money, as long as corporations can suck the tit of government. Like big Pharma and insurance cartels who make a windfall off Medicare D.
> 
> 1) Medicare Part D is a PERFECT example of conservatism.
> 
> Part D is not in fact an entitlement program; it really isn't even a benefit provided by the government. It's a program subsidized (and nominally run) by the government in which people buy prescription drug insurance policies provided by private companies.
> 
> 2) Conservatives made no provision in the bill to pay for it.
> 
> The chief actuary of Medicare, Rick Foster, had scored the legislation as costing more than $500 billion. The Bush administration suppressed his report, in a move the Government Accounting Office later judged "illegal.
> 
> 3) Unlike the VA and Medicaid, it forbids negotiating drug prices and it is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.
> 
> By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40% and 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.
> 
> Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window".
> 
> 4) It is in the conservative spirit of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.
> 
> Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress. A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot blame you for being confused. Though these things are opposed to conservatism, the GOP keeps putting in candidates that are NEOCONSERVATIVES and Bush was labeled by the GOP leaders a conservative. And he was but only in a knee-jerk way. He daily did things that were NOT conservative at all.
> 
> Unfortunately, if you want to know what conservatives espouse you cant learn that by looking at what these neocons do in office, but you have to read it from the pundits and more reflective conservative academes, the few still remaining anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, when Bush was in office you right wing 'conservatives' were cheerleaders shaking pom-poms. NOW, after the smoke has cleared, we are able to see the carnage of 8 years of utter failure you want that shit off your shoes...
> 
> Sorry, I am not buying ONE word of your bullshit. I talked to thousands of you so called 'conservatives' during the Bush regime. There was not a PEEP from you folks that was critical...
> 
> Was Reagan a 'conservative'?
Click to expand...


Conservatives were betrayed by Dubya and we were vocal in our opposition to his Democratic domestic agenda but as I've said before, Liberals lie and you are a liar

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Toro

CrusaderFrank said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot blame you for being confused. Though these things are opposed to conservatism, the GOP keeps putting in candidates that are NEOCONSERVATIVES and Bush was labeled by the GOP leaders a conservative. And he was but only in a knee-jerk way. He daily did things that were NOT conservative at all.
> 
> Unfortunately, if you want to know what conservatives espouse you cant learn that by looking at what these neocons do in office, but you have to read it from the pundits and more reflective conservative academes, the few still remaining anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, when Bush was in office you right wing 'conservatives' were cheerleaders shaking pom-poms. NOW, after the smoke has cleared, we are able to see the carnage of 8 years of utter failure you want that shit off your shoes...
> 
> Sorry, I am not buying ONE word of your bullshit. I talked to thousands of you so called 'conservatives' during the Bush regime. There was not a PEEP from you folks that was critical...
> 
> Was Reagan a 'conservative'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives were betrayed by Dubya and we were vocal in our opposition to his Democratic domestic agenda but as I've said before, Liberals lie and you are a liar
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...


You may have vocal in your opposition to Bush, but most conservatives were not.


----------



## numan

'
It's _déja vu_ all over again. After the Vietnam War, everyone was saying that they opposed the war and knew it was a mistake -- even though I knew that during the war they were Nazoids parroting the government line and were zealous in doing dirt to the real war resisters.

Now, in the wreckage of the Bushite Neo-Con disaster, they moan that Bush betrayed them -- though these hypocrites were beating the drum in support of the war criminal while he was President.

I suppose even idiots who thought they could "have a beer with Bush" are capable of learning from their mistakes -- but it's not likely.
.


----------



## thanatos144

Toro said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, when Bush was in office you right wing 'conservatives' were cheerleaders shaking pom-poms. NOW, after the smoke has cleared, we are able to see the carnage of 8 years of utter failure you want that shit off your shoes...
> 
> Sorry, I am not buying ONE word of your bullshit. I talked to thousands of you so called 'conservatives' during the Bush regime. There was not a PEEP from you folks that was critical...
> 
> Was Reagan a 'conservative'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives were betrayed by Dubya and we were vocal in our opposition to his Democratic domestic agenda but as I've said before, Liberals lie and you are a liar
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may have vocal in your opposition to Bush, but most conservatives were not.
Click to expand...


So? Most progressives were in favor of Hitler and Stalin does that mean they are all like that?


----------



## eflatminor

Saigon said:


> Why do people hate Liberals?



Because so many of their ideas require implementation by force.  Stated differently, they think they know what's best for everyone else.

Same can be said of many Conservative ideas, but modern liberals have the lion share of ideas so good, they have to mandatory...

Of course, this cannot be said of libertarian principals.


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives were betrayed by Dubya and we were vocal in our opposition to his Democratic domestic agenda but as I've said before, Liberals lie and you are a liar
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may have vocal in your opposition to Bush, but most conservatives were not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? Most progressives were in favor of Hitler and Stalin does that mean they are all like that?
Click to expand...


REALLY?

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
*Pastor Martin Niemöller*


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may have vocal in your opposition to Bush, but most conservatives were not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So? Most progressives were in favor of Hitler and Stalin does that mean they are all like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REALLY?
> 
> When the Nazis came for the communists,
> I remained silent;
> I was not a communist.
> 
> Then they locked up the social democrats,
> I remained silent;
> I was not a social democrat.
> 
> Then they came for the trade unionists,
> I did not speak out;
> I was not a trade unionist.
> 
> Then they came for the Jews,
> I did not speak out;
> I was not a Jew.
> 
> When they came for me,
> there was no one left to speak out for me.
> *Pastor Martin Niemöller*
Click to expand...

You all have a common ground in socialism. Hell FDR was more like Hitler in his concentration camps then Stalin at the time.


----------



## dilloduck

Because they lie. They lie a whole lot


----------



## Foxfyre

eflatminor said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people hate Liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because so many of their ideas require implementation by force.  Stated differently, they think they know what's best for everyone else.
> 
> Same can be said of many Conservative ideas, but modern liberals have the lion share of ideas so good, they have to mandatory...
> 
> Of course, this cannot be said of libertarian principals.
Click to expand...


I wish the title of the thread was why do conservatives hate liberalism, since I think most of us don't hate any people of whatever ideology.

But you've touched on the heart of it.

Conservativism, as defined in modern day America, does not coerce, force, or mandate other than what absolutely has to be done to secure our rights and provide us the freedom to live our lives as we choose.

Anarchist libertarianism is not liberalism but neither is it conservatism because it would deny us the ability to organize ourselves to live as we choose.

And Liberalism, as defined in modern day America, assigns all power over to the government to dictate to us what rights and privileges we will have, what property we are allowed to keep as well as how we are allowed to use it, how different groups are expected to speak and conduct themselves,  and what sort of lives we are expected to live.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bfgrn said:


> You REALLY aren't paying attention, or you're not smart enough to follow along. I suspect the latter.
> 
> Conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of less government is less Democrats in government. Conservatives have no problem spending a LOT of taxpayer's money, as long as corporations can suck the tit of government. Like big Pharma and insurance cartels who make a windfall off Medicare D.



Oh, I get it all right, you're a partisan hack with a goal of smearing the opposition. You utterly disregard reality and the meaning of words in your quest to slander the opposition.

The problem is that what you post is utter stupidity as a result. The straw man you erect then mislabel as "conservatism" bears no resemblance whatsoever to conservatism. This is because you seek to smear, rather that rationally analyze. 




> 1) Medicare Part D is a PERFECT example of conservatism.



Right Humpty; just as sand is a perfect example of water.

As long as we jettison fact, reason, logic, and intellect - your argument is sound.




> Part D is not in fact an entitlement program; it really isn't even a benefit provided by the government. It's a program subsidized (and nominally run) by the government in which people buy prescription drug insurance policies provided by private companies.



As long as we jettison fact, reason, logic, and intellect - your argument is sound.

However, out here in "rational world," words have fixed meanings.

{Definition of ENTITLEMENT
1
a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2
:* a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program* }

So, among we rationals, Medicare Pt. D is the very definition of an entitlement.

Now I realize Humpty, that words mean precisely what you with them to mean - but you don't live in the rational world - things are a bit different here.



> 2) Conservatives made no provision in the bill to pay for it.



So Humpty, only Conservatives voted for Medicare Pt. D?

See, out here in rational  world, more democrats than Republicans voted to pass the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003.

Republican Deficit Hypocrisy - Forbes



> The chief actuary of Medicare, Rick Foster, had scored the legislation as costing more than $500 billion. The Bush administration suppressed his report, in a move the Government Accounting Office later judged "illegal.



Did you know Humpty, that out here in rational world, the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 was passed by the legislature? There in Wonderland, where you reside and define words as you please, no doubt the Bush Jabberwocky simply declared the law.



> 3) Unlike the VA and Medicaid, it forbids negotiating drug prices and it is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.
> 
> By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40% and 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.
> 
> Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window".
> 
> 4) It is in the conservative spirit of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.
> 
> Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress. A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.



The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 is terrible law - even out here in rational world. 

It is not however, "Conservative."


----------



## Uncensored2008

CrusaderFrank said:


> Conservatives were betrayed by Dubya and we were vocal in our opposition to his Democratic domestic agenda but as I've said before, Liberals lie and you are a liar
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



I wouldn't say that. Anyone who didn't know what Bush was in 2000, simply wasn't paying attention. 

I left the Republican party in 1988 due to George HW Bush, when Dubya showed up in 99, I knew exactly what he was. This is the reason that I've never voted for anyone named Bush in my life. I had very low expectations for Dubya, and he lived down to them.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> You all have a common ground in socialism. Hell FDR was more like Hitler in his concentration camps then Stalin at the time.



Actually, the death camps of Stalin dwarfed those that Hitler ran.

The concept of Concentration Camps that FDR used, came from his good friend, "Uncle Joe." FDR supposedly had no knowledge of Nazi camps when he started rounding up the Japanese.


----------



## Immanuel

JimBowie1958 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, back to your Humpty Dumpty style of debate, where words are fluid and mean anything you like at any given second.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you simply make things up and they bear no resemblance at all to reality.
> 
> Social welfare, the socialization of charity is a leftist proposition, as socialism in general is. The concept that the state should provide medical treatment and drugs is one that would never find favor with Thomas Jefferson or Tom Payne; but Mao Tse Tung and Vlad Lenin would be major fans.
> 
> Our great lurch leftward began with Wilson, abated briefly under Reagan, and accelerated under our current ruler.
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to the Communist spirit of free and unfettered markets, eh Humpty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You REALLY aren't paying attention, or you're not smart enough to follow along. I suspect the latter.
> 
> Conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of less government is less Democrats in government. Conservatives have no problem spending a LOT of taxpayer's money, as long as corporations can suck the tit of government. Like big Pharma and insurance cartels who make a windfall off Medicare D.
> 
> 1) Medicare Part D is a PERFECT example of conservatism.
> 
> Part D is not in fact an entitlement program; it really isn't even a benefit provided by the government. It's a program subsidized (and nominally run) by the government in which people buy prescription drug insurance policies provided by private companies.
> 
> 2) Conservatives made no provision in the bill to pay for it.
> 
> The chief actuary of Medicare, Rick Foster, had scored the legislation as costing more than $500 billion. The Bush administration suppressed his report, in a move the Government Accounting Office later judged "illegal.&#8221;
> 
> 3) Unlike the VA and Medicaid, it forbids negotiating drug prices and it is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.
> 
> By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40% and 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.
> 
> Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window".
> 
> 4) It is in the conservative spirit of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.
> 
> Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress. A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot blame you for being confused. Though these things are opposed to conservatism, the GOP keeps putting in candidates that are NEOCONSERVATIVES and Bush was labeled by the GOP leaders a conservative. And he was but only in a knee-jerk way. He daily did things that were NOT conservative at all.
> 
> Unfortunately, if you want to know what conservatives espouse you cant learn that by looking at what these neocons do in office, but you have to read it from the pundits and more reflective conservative academes, the few still remaining anyway.
Click to expand...


That is what has been said throughout this thread, but you put it much more succinctly.  The same kind of thing applies to the liberal side of the equation as well.  The far left, the extreme, has the loudest voice and the good message that should be heard from the left is drowned out by that extreme, aka progressives.

Immie


----------



## thanatos144

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all have a common ground in socialism. Hell FDR was more like Hitler in his concentration camps then Stalin at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the death camps of Stalin dwarfed those that Hitler ran.
> 
> The concept of Concentration Camps that FDR used, came from his good friend, "Uncle Joe." FDR supposedly had no knowledge of Nazi camps when he started rounding up the Japanese.
Click to expand...


yes... Yet that was after Hitlers and FDR's camps.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> yes... Yet that was after Hitlers and FDR's camps.



The camps of Siberia started under the Tsars. Lenin used them heavily with about a 99% mortality rate. Stalin actually increased the survival rates of the Gulags - though it was still a virtual death sentence, a Menshevik sent to the concentration camps in 1927 had about a 5% chance to live - better odds than had under Lenin. 

USSR--Genocide and Mass Murder


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes... Yet that was after Hitlers and FDR's camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The camps of Siberia started under the Tsars. Lenin used them heavily with about a 99% mortality rate. Stalin actually increased the survival rates of the Gulags - though it was still a virtual death sentence, a Menshevik sent to the concentration camps in 1927 had about a 5% chance to live - better odds than had under Lenin.
> 
> USSR--Genocide and Mass Murder
Click to expand...


Yes, the chapter of the U.S. Japanese interrment camps is not as easily defined as those under totalitarian governments intended to punish and destroy large groups of state 'enemies'.  Just as there were extreme measures in the immediate wake of 9/11 because we didn't know who the enemy was or where he intended to strike next, FDR was in the much the same situation with the attack on Pearl Harbor.

It was not that we didn't expect to be at war with Japan.  The relationship between the USA and Japan had been strained for decades and was escalating throughout the 1930's.    It is recorded that Harry Hopkins, FDR's closest adviser and architect of the New Deal, was with Roosevelt on December 6, 1941, when FDR received the latest rejection of proposals from Japan.   FDR told Hopkins, "This means war."  Hopkins comments that he wishes "we could strike the first blow and prevent any sort of surprise."  FDR responds, "No, we can't do that. We are a democracy and a peaceful people. But we have a good record."  Within hours, Japanese planes were bombing  Pearl Harbon.

Did Japan intend additional attacks?  And would Japanese people living in the U.S. side with their new country or with Japan?  How much would they inform and/or assist Japanese aggessors?  Because of fears of sabotage expressed by farmers, port authorities, manufacturers, et al, 39 days after the attack on Pearl Harbon, FDR reluctantly signed the order to inter Japanese citizens for a time. 

Mixed reviews.  The Japanese in the camps were well housed, fed, and treated.  Many did suffer great economic harm by being taken from their farms and businesses.  Others report that they were relieved because they feared the hatred and retaliation of their non-Japanese American neighbors.  A proud moment in American history?  No.   But as these things go, the devil is always in the details, and many historians figure 10% of those interred would have given help to the homeland.  We'll never know will we?    

Is the history presented honestly under liberalism?  Not so much.  But then too, conservatives sometimes leave some of the history out that is not so easy to justify.  Perhaps it is a wash.


----------



## Dragonlady

Foxfyre said:


> Conservativism, as defined in modern day America, does not coerce, force, or mandate other than what absolutely has to be done to secure our rights and provide us the freedom to live our lives as we choose.
> 
> Anarchist libertarianism is not liberalism but neither is it conservatism because it would deny us the ability to organize ourselves to live as we choose.
> 
> And Liberalism, as defined in modern day America, assigns all power over to the government to dictate to us what rights and privileges we will have, what property we are allowed to keep as well as how we are allowed to use it, how different groups are expected to speak and conduct themselves,  and what sort of lives we are expected to live.



Your definition of liberalism is false.  Liberals don't want to assign all power to the government, but rather, they want mandates which reduce the power inbalances which currently exist.  The free market will always favour the wealthy and the powerful.  So you have low income workers who get no vacations, no maternity leaves, and no benefits because low income workers are hardly scarce or difficult to find.  They have no power.

Conservatives think that they will be fairly treated by the corporations.  I have no such faith.


----------



## eflatminor

Dragonlady said:


> The free market will always favour the wealthy and the powerful.



Only if business has the support of crony politicians in power...the very same central planners you hope will save the poor.

A better idea might be to eliminate the ability of business to engage in cronyism by restricting where politicians can meddle.  After all, if no government politician or bureaucrat has the power to grant favors or create loopholes, the business has no ability to manipulate the system to their favor.

In other words, you're looking for a savior among the very people that created the problem in the first place.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservativism, as defined in modern day America, does not coerce, force, or mandate other than what absolutely has to be done to secure our rights and provide us the freedom to live our lives as we choose.
> 
> Anarchist libertarianism is not liberalism but neither is it conservatism because it would deny us the ability to organize ourselves to live as we choose.
> 
> And Liberalism, as defined in modern day America, assigns all power over to the government to dictate to us what rights and privileges we will have, what property we are allowed to keep as well as how we are allowed to use it, how different groups are expected to speak and conduct themselves,  and what sort of lives we are expected to live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your definition of liberalism is false.  Liberals don't want to assign all power to the government, but rather, they want mandates which reduce the power inbalances which currently exist.  The free market will always favour the wealthy and the powerful.  So you have low income workers who get no vacations, no maternity leaves, and no benefits because low income workers are hardly scarce or difficult to find.  They have no power.
> 
> Conservatives think that they will be fairly treated by the corporations.  I have no such faith.
Click to expand...


Conservatives don't care whether corporations treat anybody fairly or not.  Conservatives want the right to make a living, choose who they will work for, and have the freedom to sell their labor, experience, expertise, etc. to the highest bidder who will offer the working conditions the conservative desires.  Conservatives know that when government can dictate how corporations will treat their employees, there can be some benefits, but the cost is far too high in the options and opportunities that will be lost.

In the free market, those who want the best employees will offer those employees the best deals that they can afford.  And the best employees can command better deals than anything the government can mandate for them.  Corporations who treat their employees badly or don't create environments to attract the best of the best only hurt themselves.  And only the dregs of the work force will be willing to work for them.

You say you don't want to assign all power to the government, and then you go ahead to describe how you want government to create the society you wish to have.  And THAT gives government power to do anything to you or me and everybody else that it wants to do.


----------



## Toro

thanatos144 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives were betrayed by Dubya and we were vocal in our opposition to his Democratic domestic agenda but as I've said before, Liberals lie and you are a liar
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may have vocal in your opposition to Bush, but most conservatives were not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? Most progressives were in favor of Hitler and Stalin does that mean they are all like that?
Click to expand...


No they weren't.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservativism, as defined in modern day America, does not coerce, force, or mandate other than what absolutely has to be done to secure our rights and provide us the freedom to live our lives as we choose.
> 
> Anarchist libertarianism is not liberalism but neither is it conservatism because it would deny us the ability to organize ourselves to live as we choose.
> 
> And Liberalism, as defined in modern day America, assigns all power over to the government to dictate to us what rights and privileges we will have, what property we are allowed to keep as well as how we are allowed to use it, how different groups are expected to speak and conduct themselves,  and what sort of lives we are expected to live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your definition of liberalism is false.  Liberals don't want to assign all power to the government, but rather, they want mandates which reduce the power inbalances which currently exist.  The free market will always favour the wealthy and the powerful.  So you have low income workers who get no vacations, no maternity leaves, and no benefits because low income workers are hardly scarce or difficult to find.  They have no power.
> 
> Conservatives think that they will be fairly treated by the corporations.  I have no such faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't care whether corporations treat anybody fairly or not.  Conservatives want the right to make a living, choose who they will work for, and have the freedom to sell their labor, experience, expertise, etc. to the highest bidder who will offer the working conditions the conservative desires.  Conservatives know that when government can dictate how corporations will treat their employees, there can be some benefits, but the cost is far too high in the options and opportunities that will be lost.
> 
> In the free market, those who want the best employees will offer those employees the best deals that they can afford.  And the best employees can command better deals than anything the government can mandate for them.  Corporations who treat their employees badly or don't create environments to attract the best of the best only hurt themselves.  And only the dregs of the work force will be willing to work for them.
> 
> You say you don't want to assign all power to the government, and then you go ahead to describe how you want government to create the society you wish to have.  And THAT gives government power to do anything to you or me and everybody else that it wants to do.
Click to expand...


"One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good"
Edmund Burke

Utopian blind faith.

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history. The first democrats, the classical Athenians, had a word for the ideal free marketer, the homo economicus, working for his own economic gain but unconcerned with the community. It was not particularly complimentary, the ancestor of our word idiot. Pericles expressed the sentiment underlying this: We regard the citizen who takes no part in these [public] duties not as un-ambitious but as useless 

We have ignored the ramifications of this as we remodeled our pantheon. We have replaced the notion of public-spirited citizens interested in the common weal, a vital part of democratic thought from ancient Athens to our founding fathers, by the invisible hand of the free market. This promises to maximize benefit for society, if only we will be idiots.

In so far as it fails to value disinterested public spirit, free market doctrine only pretends to cherish democracy. Let the people concentrate on their economic gain while their leaders rule in any manner they choose. The Peoples Republic of China instituted free market reforms to sustain its autocratic political regime. Augusto Pinochet brutally repressed even mild political dissent while pursuing free market economic policies in Chile.

The reality of our own political power structure is that despite the primacy of our financial markets and our contemporary rituals of democracy, powerful corporations, unions and special interest groups fund political campaigns and exact repayment in the form of enormous influence on legislation. Our government is responsive primarily to these organizations, rather than to citizens. This resembles the corporatism of Mussolinis Italy more closely than any historic democracy. We are blind to the connection between corporatism and the lack of public interest in politics and in the common good.

In our enthusiasm for the dogma that any government interference is necessarily bad, we forget it was government action that ended child labor. It was government action that outlawed slavery, despite its profitability. It was government action that ended the Great Depression, after years of failure of nonintervention. It was government action that curbed the most virulent expressions of racism, that provided an education for the great majority, that created a large stable middle class. The free market did not achieve any of these goods, and there is no indication that it ever would have done so.

This is not meant to imply that everything government does is beneficial. But to start from the faith that everything government does is necessarily harmful not only disregards history; it sacrifices the ability, and even the interest, to distinguish between the beneficial and the harmful.


----------



## koshergrl

What claptrap.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bfgrn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You REALLY aren't paying attention, or you're not smart enough to follow along. I suspect the latter.
> 
> Conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of less government is less Democrats in government. Conservatives have no problem spending a LOT of taxpayer's money, as long as corporations can suck the tit of government. Like big Pharma and insurance cartels who make a windfall off Medicare D.
> 
> 1) Medicare Part D is a PERFECT example of conservatism.
> 
> Part D is not in fact an entitlement program; it really isn't even a benefit provided by the government. It's a program subsidized (and nominally run) by the government in which people buy prescription drug insurance policies provided by private companies.
> 
> 2) Conservatives made no provision in the bill to pay for it.
> 
> The chief actuary of Medicare, Rick Foster, had scored the legislation as costing more than $500 billion. The Bush administration suppressed his report, in a move the Government Accounting Office later judged "illegal.
> 
> 3) Unlike the VA and Medicaid, it forbids negotiating drug prices and it is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.
> 
> By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40% and 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.
> 
> Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window".
> 
> 4) It is in the conservative spirit of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.
> 
> Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress. A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot blame you for being confused. Though these things are opposed to conservatism, the GOP keeps putting in candidates that are NEOCONSERVATIVES and Bush was labeled by the GOP leaders a conservative. And he was but only in a knee-jerk way. He daily did things that were NOT conservative at all.
> 
> Unfortunately, if you want to know what conservatives espouse you cant learn that by looking at what these neocons do in office, but you have to read it from the pundits and more reflective conservative academes, the few still remaining anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, when Bush was in office you right wing 'conservatives' were cheerleaders shaking pom-poms. NOW, after the smoke has cleared, we are able to see the carnage of 8 years of utter failure you want that shit off your shoes...
> 
> Sorry, I am not buying ONE word of your bullshit. I talked to thousands of you so called 'conservatives' during the Bush regime. There was not a PEEP from you folks that was critical...
> 
> Was Reagan a 'conservative'?
Click to expand...


Dude, a huge number of conservatives were opposed to Bush, like Ron Paul, Dick Army, Bob Barr, etc.

If that means nothing to you then you are a fucking retard.


----------



## Bfgrn

JimBowie1958 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot blame you for being confused. Though these things are opposed to conservatism, the GOP keeps putting in candidates that are NEOCONSERVATIVES and Bush was labeled by the GOP leaders a conservative. And he was but only in a knee-jerk way. He daily did things that were NOT conservative at all.
> 
> Unfortunately, if you want to know what conservatives espouse you cant learn that by looking at what these neocons do in office, but you have to read it from the pundits and more reflective conservative academes, the few still remaining anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, when Bush was in office you right wing 'conservatives' were cheerleaders shaking pom-poms. NOW, after the smoke has cleared, we are able to see the carnage of 8 years of utter failure you want that shit off your shoes...
> 
> Sorry, I am not buying ONE word of your bullshit. I talked to thousands of you so called 'conservatives' during the Bush regime. There was not a PEEP from you folks that was critical...
> 
> Was Reagan a 'conservative'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, a huge number of conservatives were opposed to Bush, like Ron Paul, Dick Army, Bob Barr, etc.
> 
> If that means nothing to you then you are a fucking retard.
Click to expand...


What it means to me? What does it mean to YOU that Ron Paul and Bob Barr were both on the ballot for President in the past. It was as standard-bearers for the libertarian party.


----------



## Mr. H.

Liberals are fraught with misspent empathetic emotions. 

Misspent, misguided, misinformed, misaligned, and... for the lack of further terminology...

totally fucked up. 

The end.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bfgrn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, when Bush was in office you right wing 'conservatives' were cheerleaders shaking pom-poms. NOW, after the smoke has cleared, we are able to see the carnage of 8 years of utter failure you want that shit off your shoes...
> 
> Sorry, I am not buying ONE word of your bullshit. I talked to thousands of you so called 'conservatives' during the Bush regime. There was not a PEEP from you folks that was critical...
> 
> Was Reagan a 'conservative'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, a huge number of conservatives were opposed to Bush, like Ron Paul, Dick Army, Bob Barr, etc.
> 
> If that means nothing to you then you are a fucking retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it means to me? What does it mean to YOU that Ron Paul and Bob Barr were both on the ballot for President in the past. It was as standard-bearers for the libertarian party.
Click to expand...


lol, they were also Republicans for most of their careers, and conservative for their whole lives.

Discounting conservative opposition to Bush because the RINOs embraced him is like condemning socialism for what the communists did in Russia and the commies call themselves socialists too.

But go on with your hateful lies; the Truth will rise.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Shu1ma3ker said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.



It isn't directed at classic liberals, but at the current crop of lying, anti-white, cheating, grow-government-at-any-cost peope who call themselves liberals but who come more from the Marxist school of thought than the Teddy Roosevelt to Jack Kennedy style of liberalism.

The situation is only made worse by the complete cowardice of liberals to denounce these frauds.


----------



## Bfgrn

JimBowie1958 said:


> Shu1ma3ker said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't directed at classic liberals, but at the current crop of lying, anti-white, cheating, grow-government-at-any-cost peope who call themselves liberals but who come more from the Marxist school of thought than *the Teddy Roosevelt to Jack Kennedy style of liberalism.*
> 
> The situation is only made worse by the complete cowardice of liberals to denounce these frauds.
Click to expand...


Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

FRAUDS? You mean the liberals who created the most robust and prosperous middle class in human history? You mean the liberals who created an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city on the hill', the envy of the world? You mean the liberals who PAID for what they spent? As opposed to conservatives like Ronald Reagan who stopped paying for what we spent and put America on the Beijing credit card? As opposed to conservatives like Ronald Reagan who decided our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren should pay for what HE and conservatives spent? As opposed to conservatives like Ronald Reagan who created as much debt in 5 years as ALL the Presidents that preceded him COMBINED???

And liberals should denounce the greatest era in American history and praise the WORST era in American history instead???

NONE of those liberals from Teddy Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy were Marxists. They were all capitalists who clearly understood that capitalism is not a religion and it is not a form of governance. It is an economic method that works very well when properly regulated. And FAILS miserably when dogmatic doctrinaires try to turn capitalism into a religion and believe in magic.

And classical liberals have nothing in common with right wing conservatives who want to create a plutocracy.

If anyone or anything needs to be denounced, it is the TOTAL failure of the Reagan revolution. VOODOO economics and 'trickle down' eco-fascism. It was just as big of a failure as the Bolshevik revolution.

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'



"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.


----------



## editec

Ah yes, more collective group mental masterbation by this board's Rs and Ds as they pretend that the words_  liberal _and _conservative_ actually mean something real.

TEAM thinkers = morons


----------



## Dragonlady

Foxfyre said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservativism, as defined in modern day America, does not coerce, force, or mandate other than what absolutely has to be done to secure our rights and provide us the freedom to live our lives as we choose.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> You say you don't want to assign all power to the government, and then you go ahead to describe how you want government to create the society you wish to have.  And THAT gives government power to do anything to you or me and everybody else that it wants to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first paragraph is bullshit.  Conservatives are all about regulating women's reproduction rights to the point of introducing legislation to which effectively renders Roe v Wade as dead - limiting a poor woman's ability to obtain a legal abortion.
> 
> I didn't say a thing about creating a particular kind of society.  I talked about regulating employee abuses and minimum wages.  Just like they do in all of the countries with a higher quality of life than the United States.
> 
> The US is the only first world country in the world where employees have no right to take a vacation, no guarantee of health care insurance, and no maternity leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Bfgrn

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dragonlady again.


----------



## Bfgrn

editec said:


> Ah yes, more collective group mental masterbation by this board's Rs and Ds as they pretend that the words_  liberal _and _conservative_ actually mean something real.
> 
> TEAM thinkers = morons



SO above it all high and mighty=a narcissistic moron. 

The ideas, solutions and policies of liberals vs. conservatives and where they want to take this country ACTUALLY DO mean something real.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may have vocal in your opposition to Bush, but most conservatives were not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So? Most progressives were in favor of Hitler and Stalin does that mean they are all like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REALLY?
> 
> When the Nazis came for the communists,
> I remained silent;
> I was not a communist.
> 
> Then they locked up the social democrats,
> I remained silent;
> I was not a social democrat.
> 
> Then they came for the trade unionists,
> I did not speak out;
> I was not a trade unionist.
> 
> Then they came for the Jews,
> I did not speak out;
> I was not a Jew.
> 
> When they came for me,
> there was no one left to speak out for me.
> *Pastor Martin Niemöller*
Click to expand...


Obama's erecting a genuine fucking police state here in the USA, you should get off your fucking knees and speak up against it


----------



## Dragonlady

CrusaderFrank said:


> Obama's erecting a genuine fucking police state here in the USA, you should get off your fucking knees and speak up against it



Again, this is total bullshit.  No one is throwing US citizens into jail on a wholesale basis.  US citizens are not being tortured or murdered by the state.  No one is confiscating your precious guns, and the last time I looked, you had constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure, imprisonment without due process, and the right to free speech and freedom of the press.

One of the biggest problems I see with conservatives is the hyperbole that they post about the current President of the US.  He's not a communist, or incompetent, or a wuss.  He wasn't my first choice as President, but he has done a good job with the economy, preventing the US from going completely into the toilet in the wake of W's mismanagement of the economy.  I realize that this view won't go down well with conservatives here who, quite frankly, or the most economically illiterate bunch I've ever encountered.

Managing the economy is a delicate balancing act.  You have to keep businesses growing, but you have to protect citizens from abuses and excesses by the corporations, who exist solely to make a profit with no concern about how that profit is achieved.  Corporations are not people, and they don't have aspirations, goals or dreams.  They exist to make the most profit possible within the framework of existing laws and regulations.  They have no interest in the broader community because that is not the mandate of a corporation.  The government has a responsibility to the broader community to ameliorate the worst excesses of the single-minded pursuit of profit, in the same way that the criminal justice system exists to punish those individuals who would injure their fellow citizens through assault, theft, and other personal and property crimes.

Conservatives assume all employers are benevolent, all profitable business deals are on the up and up, and no one would ever take advantage of their wealth and position to bully those with less, and everyone wants clean air and water.  If you believe this stuff to be true, I have a lovely ski resort in Miami I'd like to talk to you about.


----------



## Bfgrn

Dragonlady said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's erecting a genuine fucking police state here in the USA, you should get off your fucking knees and speak up against it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is total bullshit.  No one is throwing US citizens into jail on a wholesale basis.  US citizens are not being tortured or murdered by the state.  No one is confiscating your precious guns, and the last time I looked, you had constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure, imprisonment without due process, and the right to free speech and freedom of the press.
> 
> One of the biggest problems I see with conservatives is the hyperbole that they post about the current President of the US.  He's not a communist, or incompetent, or a wuss.  He wasn't my first choice as President, but he has done a good job with the economy, preventing the US from going completely into the toilet in the wake of W's mismanagement of the economy.  I realize that this view won't go down well with conservatives here who, quite frankly, or the most economically illiterate bunch I've ever encountered.
> 
> Managing the economy is a delicate balancing act.  You have to keep businesses growing, but you have to protect citizens from abuses and excesses by the corporations, who exist solely to make a profit with no concern about how that profit is achieved.  Corporations are not people, and they don't have aspirations, goals or dreams.  They exist to make the most profit possible within the framework of existing laws and regulations.  They have no interest in the broader community because that is not the mandate of a corporation.  The government has a responsibility to the broader community to ameliorate the worst excesses of the single-minded pursuit of profit, in the same way that the criminal justice system exists to punish those individuals who would injure their fellow citizens through assault, theft, and other personal and property crimes.
> 
> Conservatives assume all employers are benevolent, all profitable business deals are on the up and up, and no one would ever take advantage of their wealth and position to bully those with less, and everyone wants clean air and water.  If you believe this stuff to be true, I have a lovely ski resort in Miami I'd like to talk to you about.
Click to expand...


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dragonlady again.

You're on a great roll Dragonlady. You are nailing it...

Here is a great Op-Ed I read this morning...

To Big U.S. Corporations: What About Some Patriotism for America?

The 4th of July is synonymous with patriotism. Tomorrow, all over the country, Americans will congregate to spend time with family and friends, barbecue, watch fireworks, and celebrate our nation's independence. Many will recite the pledge of allegiance or sing the national anthem. Wouldn't it be appropriate for the large corporations that were founded in the United States to show a similar acknowledgement of patriotism?

After all, these corporations rose to their enormous size on the backs of American workers. Their success can be attributed to taxpayer-subsidized research and development handouts. Not to mention those corporations that rushed to Washington D.C. for huge bailouts from the taxpayers when mismanagement or corruption got them into serious trouble.

How do these companies show their gratitude to their home country? Many of them send jobs overseas to dictatorial regimes and oligarchic societies who abuse their impoverished workers -- all in the name of greater profits. Meanwhile, back home, corporate lobbyists continue to press for more privileges and immunities so as to be less accountable under U.S. law for corporate crimes and other misbehavior.

[...]

In an age of increased jingoism about freedom and American ideals, the comparative yardsticks of patriotism should be applied frequently and meticulously to the large U.S. corporations that rove the world seeking advantages from other countries, to the detriment of the United States. It is our country that chartered them into existence and helped insure their success and survival. And these corporations now wield immense power in our elections, in our economy, over our military and foreign policies, and even in how we spend time with our friends and families.

The 4th of July is an ideal time to call out these runaway corporate giants who exploit the patriotic sensibilities of Americans for profit and, in wars, for profiteering, but decline to be held to any patriotic expectations or standards of their own.


----------



## Smilebong

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your first paragraph is bullshit.  Conservatives are all about regulating women's reproduction rights to the point of introducing legislation to which effectively renders Roe v Wade as dead - limiting a poor woman's ability to obtain a legal abortion.
> 
> I didn't say a thing about creating a particular kind of society.  I talked about regulating employee abuses and minimum wages.  Just like they do in all of the countries with a higher quality of life than the United States.
> 
> The US is the only first world country in the world where employees have no right to take a vacation, no guarantee of health care insurance, and no maternity leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they have that "Right?"  It is a privilege earned through hard work.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Bfgrn

Smilebong said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they have that "Right?"  It is a privilege earned through hard work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? WHEN have they worked hard enough and long enough to 'earn' it? When they hit 65?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Smilebong

Bfgrn said:


> Really? WHEN have they worked hard enough and long enough to 'earn' it? When they hit 65?



I don't know. I guess when they get to the place where they are valuable enough to the employer that they are worth giving vacation and benefits.


----------



## Foxfyre

Okay liberals.  You want the government to dictate to me the wages and benefits I will be required to provide to my employees as well as how much vacation, sick pay, and personal leave they will receive rather than leave that to me and my employees to agree on.

Please explain how giving government power to dictate that does not take away all the rights to my property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Once it has such power, please explain by what mechanism the government cannot require you to give up whatever government wants or require you to do whatever government wants you to do.

And then please explain why I should risk my time, talents, and property to provide jobs to others at all if I can work for the other guy and receive good pay and all those wonderful benefits whether I earn them or not.


----------



## Smilebong

Foxfyre said:


> Okay liberals.  You want the government to dictate to me the wages and benefits I will be required to provide to my employees as well as how much vacation, sick pay, and personal leave they will receive rather than leave that to me and my employees to agree on.
> 
> Please explain how giving government power to dictate that does not take away all the rights to my property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
> 
> Once it has such power, please explain by what mechanism the government cannot require you to give up whatever government wants or require you to do whatever government wants you to do.
> 
> And then please explain why I should risk my time, talents, and property to provide jobs to others at all if I can work for the other guy and receive good pay and all those wonderful benefits whether I earn them or not.



Because Politicians and the government collective knows better than you what is best for your business and the economy. *sarcasm off*


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Okay liberals.  You want the government to dictate to me the wages and benefits I will be required to provide to my employees as well as how much vacation, sick pay, and personal leave they will receive rather than leave that to me and my employees to agree on.
> 
> Please explain how giving government power to dictate that does not take away all the rights to my property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
> 
> Once it has such power, please explain by what mechanism the government cannot require you to give up whatever government wants or require you to do whatever government wants you to do.
> 
> And then please explain why I should risk my time, talents, and property to provide jobs to others at all if I can work for the other guy and receive good pay and all those wonderful benefits whether I earn them or not.



It is really, really, REALLY simple. Because if you as an employer won't, We, the People WILL. Taxpayers foot the bill. Food-stamps and other public assistance are not an indictment of government, they are an indictment of the cheap wages of American corporations and businesses.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dragonlady said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's erecting a genuine fucking police state here in the USA, you should get off your fucking knees and speak up against it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is total bullshit.  No one is throwing US citizens into jail on a wholesale basis.  US citizens are not being tortured or murdered by the state.  No one is confiscating your precious guns, and the last time I looked, you had constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure, imprisonment without due process, and the right to free speech and freedom of the press.
> 
> One of the biggest problems I see with conservatives is the hyperbole that they post about the current President of the US.  He's not a communist, or incompetent, or a wuss.  He wasn't my first choice as President, but he has done a good job with the economy, preventing the US from going completely into the toilet in the wake of W's mismanagement of the economy.  I realize that this view won't go down well with conservatives here who, quite frankly, or the most economically illiterate bunch I've ever encountered.
> 
> Managing the economy is a delicate balancing act.  You have to keep businesses growing, but you have to protect citizens from abuses and excesses by the corporations, who exist solely to make a profit with no concern about how that profit is achieved.  Corporations are not people, and they don't have aspirations, goals or dreams.  They exist to make the most profit possible within the framework of existing laws and regulations.  They have no interest in the broader community because that is not the mandate of a corporation.  The government has a responsibility to the broader community to ameliorate the worst excesses of the single-minded pursuit of profit, in the same way that the criminal justice system exists to punish those individuals who would injure their fellow citizens through assault, theft, and other personal and property crimes.
> 
> Conservatives assume all employers are benevolent, all profitable business deals are on the up and up, and no one would ever take advantage of their wealth and position to bully those with less, and everyone wants clean air and water.  If you believe this stuff to be true, I have a lovely ski resort in Miami I'd like to talk to you about.
Click to expand...


What do you call it when the government is listening to my phone calls and email without a warrant?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay liberals.  You want the government to dictate to me the wages and benefits I will be required to provide to my employees as well as how much vacation, sick pay, and personal leave they will receive rather than leave that to me and my employees to agree on.
> 
> Please explain how giving government power to dictate that does not take away all the rights to my property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
> 
> Once it has such power, please explain by what mechanism the government cannot require you to give up whatever government wants or require you to do whatever government wants you to do.
> 
> And then please explain why I should risk my time, talents, and property to provide jobs to others at all if I can work for the other guy and receive good pay and all those wonderful benefits whether I earn them or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is really, really, REALLY simple. Because if you as an employer won't, We, the People WILL. Taxpayers foot the bill. Food-stamps and other public assistance are not an indictment of government, they are an indictment of the cheap wages of American corporations and businesses.
Click to expand...


^ that's why centrally planned economies are the world's poorest and worse off


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay liberals.  You want the government to dictate to me the wages and benefits I will be required to provide to my employees as well as how much vacation, sick pay, and personal leave they will receive rather than leave that to me and my employees to agree on.
> 
> Please explain how giving government power to dictate that does not take away all the rights to my property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
> 
> Once it has such power, please explain by what mechanism the government cannot require you to give up whatever government wants or require you to do whatever government wants you to do.
> 
> And then please explain why I should risk my time, talents, and property to provide jobs to others at all if I can work for the other guy and receive good pay and all those wonderful benefits whether I earn them or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is really, really, REALLY simple. Because if you as an employer won't, We, the People WILL. Taxpayers foot the bill. Food-stamps and other public assistance are not an indictment of government, they are an indictment of the cheap wages of American corporations and businesses.
Click to expand...


Perhaps if there was less meddling in how private citizens run their business, there would be far fewer people needing public assistance.  For damn sure, if you make it not worth my while to run a business, you may be adding me to the rolls of those who need that public assitance as well as the folks who I won't be employing.

And where is it written that anybody is entitled to public assistance?  How is it not a form of slavery to force Citizen A to support Citizen B when Citizen B is unwilling to do what is necessary to support himself?  I may choose to assist Citizen B out of the goodness of my heart, but it should be my choice to do so, and not the government's prerogative to force me to provide for Citizen B.


----------



## Immanuel

Foxfyre said:


> Okay liberals.  You want the government to dictate to me the wages and benefits I will be required to provide to my employees as well as how much vacation, sick pay, and personal leave they will receive rather than leave that to me and my employees to agree on.
> 
> Please explain how giving government power to dictate that does not take away all the rights to my property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
> 
> Once it has such power, please explain by what mechanism the government cannot require you to give up whatever government wants or require you to do whatever government wants you to do.
> 
> And then please explain why I should risk my time, talents, and property to provide jobs to others at all if I can work for the other guy and receive good pay and all those wonderful benefits whether I earn them or not.



Must spread the rep.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay liberals.  You want the government to dictate to me the wages and benefits I will be required to provide to my employees as well as how much vacation, sick pay, and personal leave they will receive rather than leave that to me and my employees to agree on.
> 
> Please explain how giving government power to dictate that does not take away all the rights to my property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
> 
> Once it has such power, please explain by what mechanism the government cannot require you to give up whatever government wants or require you to do whatever government wants you to do.
> 
> And then please explain why I should risk my time, talents, and property to provide jobs to others at all if I can work for the other guy and receive good pay and all those wonderful benefits whether I earn them or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is really, really, REALLY simple. Because if you as an employer won't, We, the People WILL. Taxpayers foot the bill. Food-stamps and other public assistance are not an indictment of government, they are an indictment of the cheap wages of American corporations and businesses.
Click to expand...


Total hogwash.  They are indictments of progressives who have the audacity to believe they are more compassionate, smarter, more tolerant and less corrupt than everyone else.

Immie


----------



## numan

Uncensored2008 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives were betrayed by Dubya....
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say that. Anyone who didn't know what Bush was in 2000, simply wasn't paying attention.
> 
> I left the Republican party in 1988 due to George HW Bush, when Dubya showed up in 99, I knew exactly what he was. This is the reason that I've never voted for anyone named Bush in my life. I had very low expectations for Dubya, and he lived down to them.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree with you, Uncensored.

I felt unease about George W. Bush long ago, as soon as I knew anything about him and his family. The date that unease crystallized into alarm was October 19, 2000 as I was watching a broadcast of the Al Smith Memorial Dinner. Candidate Al Gore made a number of witty and graceful self-deprecatory remarks. I thought: Whatever else he may be, he is an intelligent, well-bred gentleman. 

Then Candidate Bush came to the podium and made a speech full of bumptiousness and crude self-praise, prefaced by these words [which were burned on my memory]: 

*"This is an impressive crowd: the haves and the have-mores. 
Some people call you the elite. I call you my base." *

My first thought was: "If this man is elected president, it will be a disaster." Then, immediately, I recalled the words of Keat's "Ode on a Grecian Urn": 

*"To what green altar, O mysterious priest, 
Leadst thou that heifer lowing at the skies, 
And all her silken flanks with garlands dressed." *

I thought: "Yes, America will be a sacrificial animal, if this arrogant fool leads her."

A friend of mine said that the reason President Bush existed was to wake America up.

I do not see that his hope was justified, and I fear that it will take even greater disasters to make people wake up from the American Dream -- or rather, the American Nightmare.
.


----------



## Foxfyre

Do do realize that the line you used of the "Have and have mores" was at the annual Al Smith dinner in which Presidents and and presidential hopefuls do their comedy routines?  It was at the same dinner that Al Gore spoofed the Social Security lockbox metaphor with  "I'll put Medicaid in a walk-in closet," joked the vice president. "I will always keep lettuce in the crisper."

Sometimes in our zeal to hate or denigrate somebody, we do only make ourselves look foolish, yes?

I respect Uncensored's opinion of W, and I agree on several fronts he tried to out liberal the liberals, but was that a betrayal if we knew what we were getting when we elected him?   As bad as he was, I still believe Al Gore would have been much, much worse.  Just as I didn't want Hillary or John McCain as president with all my heart, and both would make terrible presidents, but either would have been far less damaging to the country than Obama has been.

Liberalism has failed every place it has been tried.

I vote to give conservatism a chance.


----------



## numan

'
I know exactly what the Al Smith Dinner is, and Al Gore was perfectly in accord with its spirit.

However, if you went back and watched the performance of W. Bush, you would see how truly out of character with that spirit his performance was. The vulgarity, crude egotism and self-promotion of that man would make every drop of ink in my pen run cold if I tried to write it down.

.


----------



## JimBowie1958

numan said:


> '
> I know exactly what the Al Smith Dinner is, and Al Gore was perfectly in accord with its spirit.
> 
> However, if you went back and watched the performance of W. Bush, you would see how truly out of character with that spirit his performance was. The vulgarity, crude egotism and self-promotion of that man would make every drop of ink in my pen run cold if I tried to write it down.
> 
> .



Yeah and I saw Obama do blah, blah, blah, <fill in made up subjective bullshit here>, blah, blah.

Cant you do any better than that, dumbass?


----------



## Foxfyre

numan said:


> '
> I know exactly what the Al Smith Dinner is, and Al Gore was perfectly in accord with its spirit.
> 
> However, if you went back and watched the performance of W. Bush, you would see how truly out of character with that spirit his performance was. The vulgarity, crude egotism and self-promotion of that man would make every drop of ink in my pen run cold if I tried to write it down.
> 
> .



Well haters gonna hate.  If you think he was vulgar, crude egotism?  Self promotion more than anybody running for President?  You really do live in your own little tiny world don't you.   Actually both of them were very good at that dinner and both above reproach in both their content and their demeanor:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXsmHM-Otkg]October 2000: Gore vs. Bush - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank

To this day liberals still haven't figured out that centrally planned economies are nightmarish hellholes that build fences and post armed guards not to keep people from entering illegally but to keep them from fleeing

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay liberals.  You want the government to dictate to me the wages and benefits I will be required to provide to my employees as well as how much vacation, sick pay, and personal leave they will receive rather than leave that to me and my employees to agree on.
> 
> Please explain how giving government power to dictate that does not take away all the rights to my property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
> 
> Once it has such power, please explain by what mechanism the government cannot require you to give up whatever government wants or require you to do whatever government wants you to do.
> 
> And then please explain why I should risk my time, talents, and property to provide jobs to others at all if I can work for the other guy and receive good pay and all those wonderful benefits whether I earn them or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is really, really, REALLY simple. Because if you as an employer won't, We, the People WILL. Taxpayers foot the bill. Food-stamps and other public assistance are not an indictment of government, they are an indictment of the cheap wages of American corporations and businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps if there was less meddling in how private citizens run their business, there would be far fewer people needing public assistance.  For damn sure, if you make it not worth my while to run a business, you may be adding me to the rolls of those who need that public assitance as well as the folks who I won't be employing.
> 
> And where is it written that anybody is entitled to public assistance?  How is it not a form of slavery to force Citizen A to support Citizen B when Citizen B is unwilling to do what is necessary to support himself?  I may choose to assist Citizen B out of the goodness of my heart, but it should be my choice to do so, and not the government's prerogative to force me to provide for Citizen B.
Click to expand...


Slavery Foxfyre? How ironic and revealing of you and your 'ilk'...

Slavery would be a mother and a father waking up each morning with the fear and anxiety of not knowing if they will be able to feed their children today.

So they are forced to grab a cup and come begging to you. Just image what POWER you could wield as a GOD. 

Would you require them to come begging to you every day? Or would the 'kindness' in your heart allow them to come begging every other day??


----------



## Bfgrn

CrusaderFrank said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay liberals.  You want the government to dictate to me the wages and benefits I will be required to provide to my employees as well as how much vacation, sick pay, and personal leave they will receive rather than leave that to me and my employees to agree on.
> 
> Please explain how giving government power to dictate that does not take away all the rights to my property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
> 
> Once it has such power, please explain by what mechanism the government cannot require you to give up whatever government wants or require you to do whatever government wants you to do.
> 
> And then please explain why I should risk my time, talents, and property to provide jobs to others at all if I can work for the other guy and receive good pay and all those wonderful benefits whether I earn them or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is really, really, REALLY simple. Because if you as an employer won't, We, the People WILL. Taxpayers foot the bill. Food-stamps and other public assistance are not an indictment of government, they are an indictment of the cheap wages of American corporations and businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ that's why centrally planned economies are the world's poorest and worse off
Click to expand...


Totally false Frank. 'centrally planned economies' do not subscribe to social programs or what is called the welfare state.

The Forgotten Churchill
*
The man who stared down Hitler also helped create the modern welfare state*

In 1908, when Asquith became prime minister, there were almost no models of state welfare anywhere on earth. The exception was Bismarck&#8217;s Prussia, which to the dismay of German Social Democrats had instituted compulsory health insurance in 1883. That created a sudden panic on the left. Karl Marx had died weeks before, so the socialist leader August Bebel consulted his friend Friedrich Engels, who insisted that socialists should vote against it, as they did. *The first welfare state on earth was created against socialist opposition.*

Welfare, what is more, had an imperial dimension. The Boer War had been won with a volunteer army, and the nation had been shocked to hear of the high incidence of ill health among recruits. An empire needs troops. There was nothing socialist about state welfare, and socialists were right to fear the specter of a national health service. They continued to fear it, and when years later the Beveridge report appeared, in December 1942, it proved a bestseller but was roundly condemned in a letter by Beatrice Webb, an old Fabian, as a disastrous idea&#8212;though fortunately, as she added, very unlikely to be acted on. In the event, *Labour was the last of the three British parties to accept a National Health Service*, and William Beveridge, whom I knew as a neighbor in his last years, was endlessly bitter about the derision that Labour leaders had once heaped on his ideas.

*The forgotten truth about health provision is that socialism and state welfare are old enemies, and welfare overspending is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies.* Nobody doubts that California is capitalistic, and its public debt is notorious; the People&#8217;s Republic of China, by contrast, is a major creditor in international finance. When the two Germanies united after 1990, the social provision of the capitalist West was more than twice that of the socialist East, and the cost of unification to West Germany proved vast. Talk of socialized medicine was always misleading if socialized implies socialist, and the very word probably guarantees that confusion. The British National Health Service of 1948, like the Canadian version that followed it 20 years later, always allowed for a flourishing private sector&#8212;a sector that has tended to grow with the years. It neither banned private medical care nor discouraged it. Only a competitive economy, what is more, is likely to generate a tax base big enough to maintain public hospitals, pensions, and schools. In short, a free economy needs state welfare, and state welfare needs a free economy.

more


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is really, really, REALLY simple. Because if you as an employer won't, We, the People WILL. Taxpayers foot the bill. Food-stamps and other public assistance are not an indictment of government, they are an indictment of the cheap wages of American corporations and businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if there was less meddling in how private citizens run their business, there would be far fewer people needing public assistance.  For damn sure, if you make it not worth my while to run a business, you may be adding me to the rolls of those who need that public assitance as well as the folks who I won't be employing.
> 
> And where is it written that anybody is entitled to public assistance?  How is it not a form of slavery to force Citizen A to support Citizen B when Citizen B is unwilling to do what is necessary to support himself?  I may choose to assist Citizen B out of the goodness of my heart, but it should be my choice to do so, and not the government's prerogative to force me to provide for Citizen B.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery Foxfyre? How ironic and revealing of you and your 'ilk'...
> 
> Slavery would be a mother and a father waking up each morning with the fear and anxiety of not knowing if they will be able to feed their children today.
> 
> So they are forced to grab a cup and come begging to you. Just image what POWER you could wield as a GOD.
> 
> Would you require them to come begging to you every day? Or would the 'kindness' in your heart allow them to come begging every other day??
Click to expand...


Democrats are the slavery party

Your "Caring" is such total bullshit you should choke on it


----------



## Bfgrn

CrusaderFrank said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if there was less meddling in how private citizens run their business, there would be far fewer people needing public assistance.  For damn sure, if you make it not worth my while to run a business, you may be adding me to the rolls of those who need that public assitance as well as the folks who I won't be employing.
> 
> And where is it written that anybody is entitled to public assistance?  How is it not a form of slavery to force Citizen A to support Citizen B when Citizen B is unwilling to do what is necessary to support himself?  I may choose to assist Citizen B out of the goodness of my heart, but it should be my choice to do so, and not the government's prerogative to force me to provide for Citizen B.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery Foxfyre? How ironic and revealing of you and your 'ilk'...
> 
> Slavery would be a mother and a father waking up each morning with the fear and anxiety of not knowing if they will be able to feed their children today.
> 
> So they are forced to grab a cup and come begging to you. Just image what POWER you could wield as a GOD.
> 
> Would you require them to come begging to you every day? Or would the 'kindness' in your heart allow them to come begging every other day??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats are the slavery party
> 
> Your "Caring" is such total bullshit you should choke on it
Click to expand...


Caring is personal. Your response only reveals your heart, not mine.


----------



## Dragonlady

Foxfyre said:


> Okay liberals.  You want the government to dictate to me the wages and benefits I will be required to provide to my employees as well as how much vacation, sick pay, and personal leave they will receive rather than leave that to me and my employees to agree on.



That's not what we're saying at all.  What we are saying is the everyone should be entitled, at a minimum, to two weeks off per year.  If you want to negotatiate/offer more than two weeks, you're free to do so.  If you want to negotiate/offer higher than minimum wages, you're free to do so, but these are the minimum standards which will apply, if you want to give/negotiate better benefits, you're free to do so.

Just like everyone has standards to adhere to, so should employers.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Liberals and conservatives need to stop hating each other.  We're the greatest country in the world!  Let's not let pettiness tear us apart!  We need to stop the crazy people on both sides and be rational!


----------



## Mr. H.

Liberals tend to hold me to a task for which I am unaccountable. 

Yet... in their minds I am the sole construct of their demise. 

And that is totally fucked up. 

They do not realize that they themselves are responsible.

For themselves.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay liberals.  You want the government to dictate to me the wages and benefits I will be required to provide to my employees as well as how much vacation, sick pay, and personal leave they will receive rather than leave that to me and my employees to agree on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what we're saying at all.  What we are saying is the everyone should be entitled, at a minimum, to two weeks off per year.  If you want to negotatiate/offer more than two weeks, you're free to do so.  If you want to negotiate/offer higher than minimum wages, you're free to do so, but these are the minimum standards which will apply, if you want to give/negotiate better benefits, you're free to do so.
> 
> Just like everyone has standards to adhere to, so should employers.
Click to expand...


Why?  What entitles anybody to have two weeks off at somebody else's expense?   By what rationale can somebody be forced to finance somebody else's vacation?

 I have worked for most of the last 30 years without a single day of paid vacation, not a single paid holiday, no sick leave.  It was by my choice in return for the ability to earn as much as I had the energy and expertise to earn when I did work.  However, I have also employed people along with the two weeks' vacation, paid holidays, sick leave etc. because that was how I attracted the best people I could find to work for me.   It was purely voluntary and win win for us all.

 The free market  works in the free market just as efficiently and effectively as everything else.  The employees who don't provide some quality of life for their employees will be able to hire only the dregs of the labor market that nobody else will hire.  And they will lose those same employees just as soon as they find something more attractive.


----------



## Dragonlady

Foxfyre said:


> Liberalism has failed every place it has been tried.
> 
> I vote to give conservatism a chance.



Conservatism has had a chance.  From 1972 to 2008.  36 years and the world's most stable economy nearly collapsed.  If not for major government intervention and bailouts, it would have.  And you nearly took down the world's economy to boot.  Neither communism nor conservative economic policies are sustainable.  What does work is a mix of government infrastructure and private business and investment.

Social democracies are the only stable economies in the world right now.  Canada, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, really most of Europe, excluding Spain, Greece, and Italy.  All are far more stable and have less poverty than the US.  All have a high standard of living, universal health care, and all are economies that Milton Friedman and his acolytes haven't had the opportunity to screw up.

The US in currently in danger of developing a large, parasitic underclass of people who will be a long term drain on the public purse unless Americans endeavour to bring low end manufacturing jobs back to the US.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is really, really, REALLY simple. Because if you as an employer won't, We, the People WILL. Taxpayers foot the bill. Food-stamps and other public assistance are not an indictment of government, they are an indictment of the cheap wages of American corporations and businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if there was less meddling in how private citizens run their business, there would be far fewer people needing public assistance.  For damn sure, if you make it not worth my while to run a business, you may be adding me to the rolls of those who need that public assitance as well as the folks who I won't be employing.
> 
> And where is it written that anybody is entitled to public assistance?  How is it not a form of slavery to force Citizen A to support Citizen B when Citizen B is unwilling to do what is necessary to support himself?  I may choose to assist Citizen B out of the goodness of my heart, but it should be my choice to do so, and not the government's prerogative to force me to provide for Citizen B.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery Foxfyre? How ironic and revealing of you and your 'ilk'...
> 
> Slavery would be a mother and a father waking up each morning with the fear and anxiety of not knowing if they will be able to feed their children today.
> 
> So they are forced to grab a cup and come begging to you. Just image what POWER you could wield as a GOD.
> 
> Would you require them to come begging to you every day? Or would the 'kindness' in your heart allow them to come begging every other day??
Click to expand...


Typical libtard stupidity on parade here. 

Slave owners gave the essentials to their slaves. None of the had to worry about food, clothing and shelter.

If you libtards knew half as much as you think you do you would be geniuses walking the Earth. Instead you are just pathetic losers that live on message boards.


----------



## Bfgrn

JimBowie1958 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if there was less meddling in how private citizens run their business, there would be far fewer people needing public assistance.  For damn sure, if you make it not worth my while to run a business, you may be adding me to the rolls of those who need that public assitance as well as the folks who I won't be employing.
> 
> And where is it written that anybody is entitled to public assistance?  How is it not a form of slavery to force Citizen A to support Citizen B when Citizen B is unwilling to do what is necessary to support himself?  I may choose to assist Citizen B out of the goodness of my heart, but it should be my choice to do so, and not the government's prerogative to force me to provide for Citizen B.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery Foxfyre? How ironic and revealing of you and your 'ilk'...
> 
> Slavery would be a mother and a father waking up each morning with the fear and anxiety of not knowing if they will be able to feed their children today.
> 
> So they are forced to grab a cup and come begging to you. Just image what POWER you could wield as a GOD.
> 
> Would you require them to come begging to you every day? Or would the 'kindness' in your heart allow them to come begging every other day??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical libtard stupidity on parade here.
> 
> Slave owners gave the essentials to their slaves. None of the had to worry about food, clothing and shelter.
> 
> If you libtards knew half as much as you think you do you would be geniuses walking the Earth. Instead you are just pathetic losers that live on message boards.
Click to expand...


Then WHY did slaves want to escape???...

YOU are here, aren't you...


----------



## thanatos144

I dont think people hate liberals... I think they despise the hate Liberals represent....I mean the democrat party is the party of the KKK, Jim Crow laws, Slavery, Segregation, And Ghetto slave pens.


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> I dont think people hate liberals... I think they despise the hate Liberals represent....I mean the democrat party is the party of the KKK, Jim Crow laws, Slavery, Segregation, And Ghetto slave pens.



Beyond absurd...


----------



## dblack

Bfgrn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery Foxfyre? How ironic and revealing of you and your 'ilk'...
> 
> Slavery would be a mother and a father waking up each morning with the fear and anxiety of not knowing if they will be able to feed their children today.
> 
> So they are forced to grab a cup and come begging to you. Just image what POWER you could wield as a GOD.
> 
> Would you require them to come begging to you every day? Or would the 'kindness' in your heart allow them to come begging every other day??
> 
> 
> 
> Slave owners gave the essentials to their slaves. None of the had to worry about food, clothing and shelter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then WHY did slaves want to escape???
Click to expand...


Freedom? Is the concept really so perplexing? Slaves didn't want to escape because the food was bad. They wanted the independence and freedom to feed themselves.


----------



## Bfgrn

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slave owners gave the essentials to their slaves. None of the had to worry about food, clothing and shelter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then WHY did slaves want to escape???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom? Is the concept really so perplexing? Slaves didn't want to escape because the food was bad. They wanted the independence and freedom to feed themselves.
Click to expand...


It was a rhetorical question


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think people hate liberals... I think they despise the hate Liberals represent....I mean the democrat party is the party of the KKK, Jim Crow laws, Slavery, Segregation, And Ghetto slave pens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beyond absurd...
Click to expand...


Do you not know anything of the party you support?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery Foxfyre? How ironic and revealing of you and your 'ilk'...
> 
> Slavery would be a mother and a father waking up each morning with the fear and anxiety of not knowing if they will be able to feed their children today.
> 
> So they are forced to grab a cup and come begging to you. Just image what POWER you could wield as a GOD.
> 
> Would you require them to come begging to you every day? Or would the 'kindness' in your heart allow them to come begging every other day??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are the slavery party
> 
> Your "Caring" is such total bullshit you should choke on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Caring is personal. Your response only reveals your heart, not mine.
Click to expand...


When you need to care using other peoples money, it's no longer personal

You see that, right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

thanatos144 said:


> I dont think people hate liberals... I think they despise the hate Liberals represent....I mean the democrat party is the party of the KKK, Jim Crow laws, Slavery, Segregation, And Ghetto slave pens.



Nazi were influenced by Planned Parenthood's Eugenics against blacks and FDR's Tuskegee Experiments


----------



## Bfgrn

CrusaderFrank said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think people hate liberals... I think they despise the hate Liberals represent....I mean the democrat party is the party of the KKK, Jim Crow laws, Slavery, Segregation, And Ghetto slave pens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazi were infulenced by Planned Parenthood's Eugenics against blacks and FDR's Tuskegee Experiments
Click to expand...


You and thanatos are two peas in a pod...actually two pea brains on an ipod...


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think people hate liberals... I think they despise the hate Liberals represent....I mean the democrat party is the party of the KKK, Jim Crow laws, Slavery, Segregation, And Ghetto slave pens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazi were infulenced by Planned Parenthood's Eugenics against blacks and FDR's Tuskegee Experiments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and thanatos are two peas in a pod...actually two pea brains on an ipod...
Click to expand...


Its called knowing history you stupid hack.


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nazi were infulenced by Planned Parenthood's Eugenics against blacks and FDR's Tuskegee Experiments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and thanatos are two peas in a pod...actually two pea brains on an ipod...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its called knowing history you stupid hack.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately for you history did not END 120 years ago...


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and thanatos are two peas in a pod...actually two pea brains on an ipod...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its called knowing history you stupid hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you history did not END 120 years ago...
Click to expand...


nor did it change magically 50 years ago.


----------



## Foxfyre

JimBowie1958 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if there was less meddling in how private citizens run their business, there would be far fewer people needing public assistance.  For damn sure, if you make it not worth my while to run a business, you may be adding me to the rolls of those who need that public assitance as well as the folks who I won't be employing.
> 
> And where is it written that anybody is entitled to public assistance?  How is it not a form of slavery to force Citizen A to support Citizen B when Citizen B is unwilling to do what is necessary to support himself?  I may choose to assist Citizen B out of the goodness of my heart, but it should be my choice to do so, and not the government's prerogative to force me to provide for Citizen B.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery Foxfyre? How ironic and revealing of you and your 'ilk'...
> 
> Slavery would be a mother and a father waking up each morning with the fear and anxiety of not knowing if they will be able to feed their children today.
> 
> So they are forced to grab a cup and come begging to you. Just image what POWER you could wield as a GOD.
> 
> Would you require them to come begging to you every day? Or would the 'kindness' in your heart allow them to come begging every other day??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical libtard stupidity on parade here.
> 
> Slave owners gave the essentials to their slaves. None of the had to worry about food, clothing and shelter.
> 
> If you libtards knew half as much as you think you do you would be geniuses walking the Earth. Instead you are just pathetic losers that live on message boards.
Click to expand...


Yep, but remember that most of our liberal friends are victims of the public school system that no longer educates all that much, but it does indoctrinate.  So our friend can be forgiven for not knowing the difference between poverty and slavery.

Poverty is the lack of something.

Slavery is involuntary servitude to another.

Conservatives know the difference between these two things.  Liberals apparently lack the ability to grasp that concept.
I still say it is something in the water they drink.


----------



## dblack

Bfgrn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then WHY did slaves want to escape???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom? Is the concept really so perplexing? Slaves didn't want to escape because the food was bad. They wanted the independence and freedom to feed themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a rhetorical question
Click to expand...


Yes, a rhetorical question offered in defense of the preposterous claim that the burden of providing for oneself is the equivalent off slavery. That point of view is an insult to the memory of real slaves who longed for the freedom you're so eager to give up in exchange for caretaker government.


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its called knowing history you stupid hack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you history did not END 120 years ago...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nor did it change magically 50 years ago.
Click to expand...


Actually, it DID...LOL

*Presidential Vote and Party Identi&#64257;cation of African Americans, 1956-1964*






As you can see, over the course of just eight years, African American support for the Republican Party practically evaporated.

How did this happen? It can be tied directly to the acts and leadership of three men: Martin Luther King, Jr., who was the leader of the Civil Rights movement; John F. Kennedy, the nations president from 1961 through November, 1963, when he was assassinated; and Lyndon Baines Johnson, Kennedys successor as president.

Most know who Martin Luther King, Jr, was, and probably President Kennedy as well; President Johnson, although pivotal in the passage of civil rights laws, is undoubtedly the lesser known and least revered among these three historical figures.

But they were all key players in eliminating segregation and legalized discrimination in the South.

How these three men were linked in changing the face of African American politics:

    In October of 1960, less then three weeks before the presidential election, Martin Luther King Jr., already recognized as Black Americas most prominent civil rights leader, had been arrested in Georgia on a traffic technicality: he was still using his Alabama license, although by then he had lived in Georgia for three months.

    A swift series of moves by the states segregationist power structure resulted in King being sentenced to four months of hard labor on a Georgia chain gang. He was quickly spirited away to the states maximum security prison, and many of his supporters, fearing for his life, urgently called both the Nixon and Kennedy camps for help.

    Nixon, about to campaign in South Carolina in hopes of capturing the states normally solid Democratic vote, took no action. Kennedy took swift action. He made a brief telephone call to a frantic Coretta Scott King, speaking in soothing generalities and telling her, If theres anything I can do to help, please feel free to call on me.

    Its likely that Kennedy did not at that moment realize the political implications of that call. Ever the pragmatist, he had resisted the pleas of several aides throughout the campaign that he take bolder public stands on civil rights issues. The telephone call came because one aide caught him late at night after a hard day of campaigning and staff meetings as he was about to turn in. The aide, Harris Wofford, pitched it as just a call to calm Kings fearful spouse. Kennedy replied, What the hell. Thats a decent thing to do. Why not? Get her on the phone.

    King was soon released, unharmed, due to a groundswell of pressure directed by blacks and whites in numerous quarters toward Georgia officials (Robert F. Kennedy himself, who was managing his brothers campaign called the judge who sentenced King to prison). At the time, the white media paid little attention to the call, which suited the Kennedys fine. But it likely transformed the black vote. Kings father, Martin Luther King Sr., a dominating, fire-and-brimstone preacher with wide influence throughout Black America, had, like many black Southerners, always been a Republican and until that moment had said he couldnt vote for Kennedy because he was a Catholic.

    (But) the day his son was released from prison, the elder King thundered from the pulpit of his famed Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta: I had expected to vote against Senator Kennedy because of his religion. But now he can be my president, Catholic or whatever he is He has the moral courage to stand up for what he knows is right. Ive got all my votes and Ive got a suitcase, and Im going to take them up there and dump them in his lap.

Why Do Blacks Vote for Democrats? MLK, JFK, and LBJ


----------



## Immanuel

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think people hate liberals... I think they despise the hate Liberals represent....I mean the democrat party is the party of the KKK, Jim Crow laws, Slavery, Segregation, And Ghetto slave pens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beyond absurd...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not know anything of the party you support?
Click to expand...


It is easier just to blame the other guy and go on hating and being intolerant.  It takes too much effort to examine one's self and make changes.

Immie


----------



## thanatos144

Foxfyre said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay liberals.  You want the government to dictate to me the wages and benefits I will be required to provide to my employees as well as how much vacation, sick pay, and personal leave they will receive rather than leave that to me and my employees to agree on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what we're saying at all.  What we are saying is the everyone should be entitled, at a minimum, to two weeks off per year.  If you want to negotatiate/offer more than two weeks, you're free to do so.  If you want to negotiate/offer higher than minimum wages, you're free to do so, but these are the minimum standards which will apply, if you want to give/negotiate better benefits, you're free to do so.
> 
> Just like everyone has standards to adhere to, so should employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?  What entitles anybody to have two weeks off at somebody else's expense?   By what rationale can somebody be forced to finance somebody else's vacation?
> 
> I have worked for most of the last 30 years without a single day of paid vacation, not a single paid holiday, no sick leave.  It was by my choice in return for the ability to earn as much as I had the energy and expertise to earn when I did work.  However, I have also employed people along with the two weeks' vacation, paid holidays, sick leave etc. because that was how I attracted the best people I could find to work for me.   It was purely voluntary and win win for us all.
> 
> The free market  works in the free market just as efficiently and effectively as everything else.  The employees who don't provide some quality of life for their employees will be able to hire only the dregs of the labor market that nobody else will hire.  And they will lose those same employees just as soon as they find something more attractive.
Click to expand...


I get paid vacations and I use them..... Only a fool wouldn't use a a fringe benefit a employer gives you.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you history did not END 120 years ago...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nor did it change magically 50 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it DID...LOL
> 
> *Presidential Vote and Party Identi&#64257;cation of African Americans, 1956-1964*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, over the course of just eight years, African American support for the Republican Party practically evaporated.
> 
> How did this happen? It can be tied directly to the acts and leadership of three men: Martin Luther King, Jr., who was the leader of the Civil Rights movement; John F. Kennedy, the nations president from 1961 through November, 1963, when he was assassinated; and Lyndon Baines Johnson, Kennedys successor as president.
> 
> Most know who Martin Luther King, Jr, was, and probably President Kennedy as well; President Johnson, although pivotal in the passage of civil rights laws, is undoubtedly the lesser known and least revered among these three historical figures.
> 
> But they were all key players in eliminating segregation and legalized discrimination in the South.
> 
> How these three men were linked in changing the face of African American politics:
> 
> In October of 1960, less then three weeks before the presidential election, Martin Luther King Jr., already recognized as Black Americas most prominent civil rights leader, had been arrested in Georgia on a traffic technicality: he was still using his Alabama license, although by then he had lived in Georgia for three months.
> 
> A swift series of moves by the states segregationist power structure resulted in King being sentenced to four months of hard labor on a Georgia chain gang. He was quickly spirited away to the states maximum security prison, and many of his supporters, fearing for his life, urgently called both the Nixon and Kennedy camps for help.
> 
> Nixon, about to campaign in South Carolina in hopes of capturing the states normally solid Democratic vote, took no action. Kennedy took swift action. He made a brief telephone call to a frantic Coretta Scott King, speaking in soothing generalities and telling her, If theres anything I can do to help, please feel free to call on me.
> 
> Its likely that Kennedy did not at that moment realize the political implications of that call. Ever the pragmatist, he had resisted the pleas of several aides throughout the campaign that he take bolder public stands on civil rights issues. The telephone call came because one aide caught him late at night after a hard day of campaigning and staff meetings as he was about to turn in. The aide, Harris Wofford, pitched it as just a call to calm Kings fearful spouse. Kennedy replied, What the hell. Thats a decent thing to do. Why not? Get her on the phone.
> 
> King was soon released, unharmed, due to a groundswell of pressure directed by blacks and whites in numerous quarters toward Georgia officials (Robert F. Kennedy himself, who was managing his brothers campaign called the judge who sentenced King to prison). At the time, the white media paid little attention to the call, which suited the Kennedys fine. But it likely transformed the black vote. Kings father, Martin Luther King Sr., a dominating, fire-and-brimstone preacher with wide influence throughout Black America, had, like many black Southerners, always been a Republican and until that moment had said he couldnt vote for Kennedy because he was a Catholic.
> 
> (But) the day his son was released from prison, the elder King thundered from the pulpit of his famed Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta: I had expected to vote against Senator Kennedy because of his religion. But now he can be my president, Catholic or whatever he is He has the moral courage to stand up for what he knows is right. Ive got all my votes and Ive got a suitcase, and Im going to take them up there and dump them in his lap.
> 
> Why Do Blacks Vote for Democrats? MLK, JFK, and LBJ
Click to expand...


Yep LBJ's plan to and I quote "Get those ******* voting democrat for decades" seem to have worked.... He fooled them into trading one type of slavery for another.  You should watch Runaway slave.


----------



## Foxfyre

thanatos144 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what we're saying at all.  What we are saying is the everyone should be entitled, at a minimum, to two weeks off per year.  If you want to negotatiate/offer more than two weeks, you're free to do so.  If you want to negotiate/offer higher than minimum wages, you're free to do so, but these are the minimum standards which will apply, if you want to give/negotiate better benefits, you're free to do so.
> 
> Just like everyone has standards to adhere to, so should employers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  What entitles anybody to have two weeks off at somebody else's expense?   By what rationale can somebody be forced to finance somebody else's vacation?
> 
> I have worked for most of the last 30 years without a single day of paid vacation, not a single paid holiday, no sick leave.  It was by my choice in return for the ability to earn as much as I had the energy and expertise to earn when I did work.  However, I have also employed people along with the two weeks' vacation, paid holidays, sick leave etc. because that was how I attracted the best people I could find to work for me.   It was purely voluntary and win win for us all.
> 
> The free market  works in the free market just as efficiently and effectively as everything else.  The employees who don't provide some quality of life for their employees will be able to hire only the dregs of the labor market that nobody else will hire.  And they will lose those same employees just as soon as they find something more attractive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get paid vacations and I use them..... Only a fool wouldn't use a a fringe benefit a employer gives you.
Click to expand...


The issue was not that people take advantage of the benefits they receive or negotiate for.  All of us do that.

The issue was the idea that I should have a right - an entitlement - to a two week paid vacation that you, or somebody else, is required to pay for.

For the government to mandate that is to enslave one person in servitude to another.

For the employer and a valuable employee to voluntarily negotiate that in an employment contract is simply good business.


----------



## numan

CrusaderFrank said:


> Democrats are the slavery party


Reps and Dems are just two wings of the Slavery Party.

And those who accord either of them any respect are just Willing Slaves.

.


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beyond absurd...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not know anything of the party you support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is easier just to blame the other guy and go on hating and being intolerant.  It takes too much effort to examine one's self and make changes.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


The Democratic Party has been at the forefront of EVERY civil rights legislation for the last 60 years. The Republican party of Lincoln is dead.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not know anything of the party you support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is easier just to blame the other guy and go on hating and being intolerant.  It takes too much effort to examine one's self and make changes.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democratic Party has been at the forefront of EVERY civil rights legislation for the last 60 years. The Republican party of Lincoln is dead.
Click to expand...


really so Kennedy didn't vote against civil rights? you are full of shit

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is easier just to blame the other guy and go on hating and being intolerant.  It takes too much effort to examine one's self and make changes.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democratic Party has been at the forefront of EVERY civil rights legislation for the last 60 years. The Republican party of Lincoln is dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really so Kennedy didn't vote against civil rights? you are full of shit
> 
> Welcome to my nightmare
Click to expand...


Civil Rights Act of 1964

In an 11 June 1963 speech broadcast live on national television and radio, President John F. Kennedy unveiled plans to pursue a comprehensive civil rights bill in Congress, stating, this nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free (President Kennedys Radio-TV Address, 970). King congratulated Kennedy on his speech, calling it one of the most eloquent, profound and unequivocal pleas for justice and the freedom of all men ever made by any president (King, 12 June 1963).


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democratic Party has been at the forefront of EVERY civil rights legislation for the last 60 years. The Republican party of Lincoln is dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really so Kennedy didn't vote against civil rights? you are full of shit
> 
> Welcome to my nightmare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964
> 
> In an 11 June 1963 speech broadcast live on national television and radio, President John F. Kennedy unveiled plans to pursue a comprehensive civil rights bill in Congress, stating, &#8216;&#8216;this nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free&#8217;&#8217; (&#8216;&#8216;President Kennedy&#8217;s Radio-TV Address,&#8217;&#8217; 970). King congratulated Kennedy on his speech, calling it &#8216;&#8216;one of the most eloquent, profound and unequivocal pleas for justice and the freedom of all men ever made by any president&#8217;&#8217; (King, 12 June 1963).
Click to expand...


now you dishonest is hack tell us about the exact same bill proposed 3 times prior by Republicans voted down all by Democrats one of them being senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not know anything of the party you support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is easier just to blame the other guy and go on hating and being intolerant.  It takes too much effort to examine one's self and make changes.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democratic Party has been at the forefront of EVERY civil rights legislation for the last 60 years. The Republican party of Lincoln is dead.
Click to expand...


So, since you can't defend your party, you just change the names and say "nah, nah,nah, we are better than you.  We are now the party of Licoln.  We are more compassionate. We are smarter. We are more tolerant. We are not as corrupt.  Therefore, you need to let us tell you how to live, but it is you who are the authoritarians, not us."

Let me ask you this.  What *HAS* a Democrat done for us in the last 52 years?  Can you name one thing that does not equate to "drop 'em and bend over"?

Good lord, do you ever actually read your posts critically?

Imminent


----------



## American_Jihad

So the progressive/liberals buried the thread in "Philosophy" wonder why they didn't move it to Badland. Ah ha, the thread was started by a europeeon/liberal journalist from hellstinki...


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is easier just to blame the other guy and go on hating and being intolerant.  It takes too much effort to examine one's self and make changes.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democratic Party has been at the forefront of EVERY civil rights legislation for the last 60 years. The Republican party of Lincoln is dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, since you can't defend your party, you just change the names and say "nah, nah,nah, we are better than you.  We are now the party of Licoln.  We are more compassionate. We are smarter. We are more tolerant. We are not as corrupt.  Therefore, you need to let us tell you how to live, but it is you who are the authoritarians, not us."
> 
> Let me ask you this.  What *HAS* a Democrat done for us in the last 52 years?  Can you name one thing that does not equate to "drop 'em and bend over"?
> 
> Good lord, do you ever actually read your posts critically?
> 
> Imminent
Click to expand...


You know Immie, there are a lot of clueless right wing turds on this board. I never considered you as one of them. But that opinion is changing.

ALL legislation over the last 52 years that has helped people, Democrats have authored. Civil rights, voter rights, women's rights, worker's rights, immigrant's rights, Veteran's benefits, consumer protection, education for ALL. 

There is an axiom: two groups of people vote Republican; millionaires and suckers.

Which group do you belong to Immie?


----------



## eflatminor

Bfgrn said:


> ALL legislation over the last 52 years that has helped people, Democrats have authored.





As long as you overlook the fact that the rate of poverty is UP over that time period, sure, that helps people working at the welfare office I guess...


----------



## Bfgrn

eflatminor said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALL legislation over the last 52 years that has helped people, Democrats have authored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you overlook the fact that the rate of poverty is UP over that time period, sure, that helps people working at the welfare office I guess...
Click to expand...


Poverty is up because the last 30 years has been the conservative era; a frontal assault on unions, public employees, women's rights, immigrants, the environment, health care, voting rights, food safety, pensions, prenatal care, science, public broadcasting, education the list goes on and on. 

And we don't live in a vacuum. What would poverty be without the programs Democrats authored? It would be off the charts.

The War on Poverty was not a handout program. It was based on what conservative's CLAIM to be their core values and beliefs. The 'War on Poverty' was named the Office of Economic Opportunity, because the core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. Yet conservatives have always derided it. WHY?

Because conservatives don't think government should help its citizens. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.


----------



## eflatminor

Bfgrn said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALL legislation over the last 52 years that has helped people, Democrats have authored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you overlook the fact that the rate of poverty is UP over that time period, sure, that helps people working at the welfare office I guess...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poverty is up because the last 30 years has been the conservative era
Click to expand...


You go with that Sparky.  The rest of us will overlook the exponential increase in laws, regulations overall growth of government at federal and states' level....'cuz that's a result of a 'conservative era'... 

I suppose Detroit has been run by conservatives for the last 30 years too...

You're so blinded by bias it's impossible to have rational discourse.  Good luck with that.


----------



## eflatminor

Bfgrn said:


> What would poverty be without the programs Democrats authored? It would be off the charts.



The rate of poverty was headed down, consistently so, for many decades BEFORE welfare spending took off in the late sixties.  Once we started redistributing, that downward trend stopped and is now up.  

If logic and reason is to have its moment, poverty would have continued its downward trend.  There's no reason to believe otherwise.  Your meddling did more harm than good.  Deal with it.


----------



## eflatminor

Bfgrn said:


> Because conservatives don't think government should help its citizens.



Can't speak for modern conservatives, but libertarians will tell you government shouldn't steal from some citizens in a vain and misguided attempt to win political support from a recipient class.  Big difference.



> The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world),



I'm happy to see a reducing in military bases, spending, and interventionism.  Nice try.  Fail.



> not government subsidies to corporations,



All libertarians would eliminate subsidies to corporations or any special perks to one group at the expense of another.  Fail again.



> They want to cut the part that helps people. Why?



Because theft is never right and more importantly, you're NOT helping people by keeping them on the dole and enacting laws and regulations that suppress job creation in this country.  That's why.

Massive fail, just massive.


----------



## Uncensored2008

eflatminor said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because conservatives don't think government should help its citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't speak for modern conservatives, but libertarians will tell you government shouldn't steal from some citizens in a vain and misguided attempt to win political support from a recipient class.  Big difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world),
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm happy to see a reducing in military bases, spending, and interventionism.  Nice try.  Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not government subsidies to corporations,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> All libertarians would eliminate subsidies to corporations or any special perks to one group at the expense of another.  Fail again.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They want to cut the part that helps people. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because theft is never right and more importantly, you're NOT helping people by keeping them on the dole and enacting laws and regulations that suppress job creation in this country.  That's why.
> 
> Massive fail, just massive.
Click to expand...


The Irony being that Obamacare is the biggest example of corporate welfare in history.

Who promotes corporate welfare? The Obamunists!


----------



## Bfgrn

eflatminor said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you overlook the fact that the rate of poverty is UP over that time period, sure, that helps people working at the welfare office I guess...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poverty is up because the last 30 years has been the conservative era
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go with that Sparky.  The rest of us will overlook the exponential increase in laws, regulations overall growth of government at federal and states' level....'cuz that's a result of a 'conservative era'...
> 
> I suppose Detroit has been run by conservatives for the last 30 years too...
> 
> You're so blinded by bias it's impossible to have rational discourse.  Good luck with that.
Click to expand...


Republicans and conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of 'less government' is less Democrats and liberals in government. And less constraints on Wall Street, corporations, banks or any other entity that robs from the poor and middle class.

And they have given us DEBT. It took 39 Presidents 200 years to accumulate $1 trillion dollars of debt. It took Ronald Reagan 5 YEARS to accumulate the second $1 trillion dollars of debt.


"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.


----------



## eflatminor

Bfgrn said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poverty is up because the last 30 years has been the conservative era
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go with that Sparky.  The rest of us will overlook the exponential increase in laws, regulations overall growth of government at federal and states' level....'cuz that's a result of a 'conservative era'...
> 
> I suppose Detroit has been run by conservatives for the last 30 years too...
> 
> You're so blinded by bias it's impossible to have rational discourse.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans and conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of 'less government' is less Democrats and liberals in government. And less constraints on Wall Street, corporations, banks or any other entity that robs from the poor and middle class.
> 
> And they have given us DEBT. It took 39 Presidents 200 years to accumulate $1 trillion dollars of debt. It took Ronald Reagan 5 YEARS to accumulate the second $1 trillion dollars of debt.
> 
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...


Meddling Progressive assholes are to be found in both parties.  Reagan may have talked a good limited government game but spent like a Progressive.  Of course, it's telling that you overlook Obama's world record spending.  Like I said, both parties have spent and legislated us into this shape, which is HARDLY a 'conservative era'.

Blind bias, it's so ugly.


----------



## Bfgrn

eflatminor said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go with that Sparky.  The rest of us will overlook the exponential increase in laws, regulations overall growth of government at federal and states' level....'cuz that's a result of a 'conservative era'...
> 
> I suppose Detroit has been run by conservatives for the last 30 years too...
> 
> You're so blinded by bias it's impossible to have rational discourse.  Good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of 'less government' is less Democrats and liberals in government. And less constraints on Wall Street, corporations, banks or any other entity that robs from the poor and middle class.
> 
> And they have given us DEBT. It took 39 Presidents 200 years to accumulate $1 trillion dollars of debt. It took Ronald Reagan 5 YEARS to accumulate the second $1 trillion dollars of debt.
> 
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meddling Progressive assholes are to be found in both parties.  Reagan may have talked a good limited government game but spent like a Progressive.  Of course, it's telling that you overlook Obama's world record spending.  Like I said, both parties have spent and legislated us into this shape, which is HARDLY a 'conservative era'.
> 
> Blind bias, it's so ugly.
Click to expand...


Bias? What is calling conservatives progressives??

The liberal era that started with the New Deal through the Great Society was an era of corporate wealth and boom, American innovation and dominance in technology, the mass building of infrastructure, the vast expansion of individual rights, men on the moon and the BIGGEST middle class in the history of the world...

The conservative era that followed has built.......................................

The BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...















Obama's world record spending...






Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)


----------



## Foxfyre

The bottom line is whether we value freedom or whether we are willing to hand over more and more of our own lives and destiny for others to control and manage for us.

Modern day conservatives aka classical liberals do not want to give up inividual control of their lives and destiny.  And they expect to do  for themselves and pay for it themselves.

Modern day liberals say they want liberty but they don't want to be held responsibile or accountable for it and therefore give up more and more individual control of their lives and liberty to others to control and manage for them.   Nobody can be free when they depend on the other guy to give them what they want.


----------



## eflatminor

Bfgrn said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Their idea of 'less government' is less Democrats and liberals in government. And less constraints on Wall Street, corporations, banks or any other entity that robs from the poor and middle class.
> 
> And they have given us DEBT. It took 39 Presidents 200 years to accumulate $1 trillion dollars of debt. It took Ronald Reagan 5 YEARS to accumulate the second $1 trillion dollars of debt.
> 
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meddling Progressive assholes are to be found in both parties.  Reagan may have talked a good limited government game but spent like a Progressive.  Of course, it's telling that you overlook Obama's world record spending.  Like I said, both parties have spent and legislated us into this shape, which is HARDLY a 'conservative era'.
> 
> Blind bias, it's so ugly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bias? What is calling conservatives progressives??
> 
> The liberal era that started with the New Deal through the Great Society was an era of corporate wealth and boom, American innovation and dominance in technology, the mass building of infrastructure, the vast expansion of individual rights, men on the moon and the BIGGEST middle class in the history of the world...
> 
> The conservative era that followed has built.......................................
> 
> The BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's world record spending...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
> Charles Krauthammer
> 
> "The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
> Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> "Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
> Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
Click to expand...


I called many Republicans Progressives.  Whether those meddlers call themselves conservatives or not matter little.  They're meddlers, just like the Democrats that are just sure they know what's best for everyone.

Pass.

And lastly, your chart is bullshit.  Annualized growth in spending is one thing.  ACTUAL dollars spent is what really matters and in that regard, Obama is the all time world champion of spending money we don't have.

Again, you're demonstrating overwhelming bias that's making you look downright silly.


----------



## eflatminor

Foxfyre said:


> Nobody can be free when they depend on the other guy to give them what they want.


----------



## Foxfyre

That's the thing though eflat.  It has been my observation that most modern American liberals do not want liberty as much as they want control over others and gratification for themselves,  So almost all debate by cutting and pasting often dishonest big blocks of gray type along with pretty graphs and charts made up on some liberal site to show the sins of conservative administrations or consevative policies, etc.

But they won't discuss those policies because they can't articulate them or understand them.  The only means of debate they have is to belittle or diminish or criticize or demonize others.  Some conservatives are as bad, but most real conservatives can discuss a policy without trashing somebody.

Most liberals cannot.

(To specifically address the thread topic, though 'hate' is too strong a word to describe the syndrome.)


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> The bottom line is whether we value freedom or whether we are willing to hand over more and more of our own lives and destiny for others to control and manage for us.
> 
> Modern day conservatives aka classical liberals do not want to give up inividual control of their lives and destiny.  And they expect to do  for themselves and pay for it themselves.
> 
> Modern day liberals say they want liberty but they don't want to be held responsibile or accountable for it and therefore give up more and more individual control of their lives and liberty to others to control and manage for them.   Nobody can be free when they depend on the other guy to give them what they want.



Utter BULLSHIT propaganda parroting...

The BOTTOM LINE:

Liberals PAID for what they spent. JFK and LBJ faced the possibility of budget SURPLUSES.

Conservatives put America on the Beijing credit card.

The true irony of Ronald Reagan; he created a mythical 'welfare queen' used to deconstruct the middle class and trash the poor. Yet Ronald Reagan was the ultimate welfare queen. 

As the liberal era that began with the New Deal came to an end with the splintering of the Democratic Party brought about by assassination of Presidents and future Presidents, the Vietnam War fiasco and conservative money creating 'think tanks', JFK and LBJ, the last two Presidents of that era faced the awful specter how to deal with revenue SURPLUSES. Public debt was not even part of our lexicon...

Enter Reagan, the welfare queen. Put everything on the Beijing credit card and dump the bill on our children, grandchildren and their children and grandchildren.  

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.


----------



## Bfgrn

eflatminor said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meddling Progressive assholes are to be found in both parties.  Reagan may have talked a good limited government game but spent like a Progressive.  Of course, it's telling that you overlook Obama's world record spending.  Like I said, both parties have spent and legislated us into this shape, which is HARDLY a 'conservative era'.
> 
> Blind bias, it's so ugly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bias? What is calling conservatives progressives??
> 
> The liberal era that started with the New Deal through the Great Society was an era of corporate wealth and boom, American innovation and dominance in technology, the mass building of infrastructure, the vast expansion of individual rights, men on the moon and the BIGGEST middle class in the history of the world...
> 
> The conservative era that followed has built.......................................
> 
> The BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's world record spending...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
> Charles Krauthammer
> 
> "The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
> Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> "Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
> Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I called many Republicans Progressives.  Whether those meddlers call themselves conservatives or not matter little.  They're meddlers, just like the Democrats that are just sure they know what's best for everyone.
> 
> Pass.
> 
> And lastly, your chart is bullshit.  Annualized growth in spending is one thing.  ACTUAL dollars spent is what really matters and in that regard, Obama is the all time world champion of spending money we don't have.
> 
> Again, you're demonstrating overwhelming bias that's making you look downright silly.
Click to expand...


If Obama is the all time world champion of spending money we don't have...WHAT did Obama spend it on???


----------



## Foxfyre

The thread topic is why do people hate liberals.  The thread topic would have been more constructive and prompted more response had the title been "Why do conservatives have a problem with liberals?"

Let's look at one example and see if any liberals (or all our conservative friends) for that matter can address it without bashing somebody.

Bfgm's cut and paste shows Obama with a 1.4 increase in spending because it gives 2009 spending to Bush.   But that in itself is a lie, because if Obama had gone with Bush's 2009 budget, the picture would have been very diferent.  But the graph suggests that TARP was part of that budget, when it wasn't, and doesn't acknowledge that half of it was spent by Bush in 2008 and was approved, supported, and voted by Barack Obama who spent the other half in 2009.   It doesn't acknowledge that the final 2008/2009 appropriations bills passed by a Democratic super majority in 2009 and signed by Barack Obama were all over budget.  And it doesn't acknowledge that the stimulus package, just under a trillion dollars, was also off budget.

So now let's do the math.

Say the 2009 budget passed by the Bush administration was $1,000.

Let's say Bush budgets and expenditures for his last four years were:

$600
$700
$800
$900

He would have increased spending by 33% over those four years.

So Barack Obama spent that $1,000 (rightfully a Bush expenditure) in 2009 but then spent another $1,000 for a total of $2,000 which is pretty much what happened in 2009.   That extra $1,000 isn't reflected in Mediamatters graph.   And once the extra thousand was spent, they have kept spending it.

So for his first four years you have

$2,000
$2,100
$2,200
$2,300

So Obama can claim a roughly 1.4 increase in spending while in fact he has spent an enormously greater amount of money than previous administrations.

And while the numbers are not truly proportionate to the actual government expenditures, THAT is honest analysis rather than the dishonest graph from Mediamatters intended for use as propaganda to avoid the actual policy discussion..


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> The thread topic is why do people hate liberals.  The thread topic would have been more constructive and prompted more response had the title been "Why do conservatives have a problem with liberals?"
> 
> Let's look at one example and see if any liberals (or all our conservative friends) for that matter can address it without bashing somebody.
> 
> Bfgm's cut and paste shows Obama with a 1.4 increase in spending because it gives 2009 spending to Bush.   But that in itself is a lie, because if Obama had gone with Bush's 2009 budget, the picture would have been very diferent.  But the graph suggests that TARP was part of that budget, when it wasn't, and doesn't acknowledge that half of it was spent by Bush in 2008 and was approved, supported, and voted by Barack Obama who spent the other half in 2009.   It doesn't acknowledge that the final 2008/2009 appropriations bills passed by a Democratic super majority in 2009 and signed by Barack Obama were all over budget.  And it doesn't acknowledge that the stimulus package, just under a trillion dollars, was also off budget.
> 
> So now let's do the math.
> 
> Say the 2009 budget passed by the Bush administration was $1,000.
> 
> Let's say Bush budgets and expenditures for his last four years were:
> 
> $600
> $700
> $800
> $900
> 
> He would have increased spending by 33% over those four years.
> 
> So Barack Obama spent that $1,000 (rightfully a Bush expenditure) in 2009 but then spent another $1,000 for a total of $2,000 which is pretty much what happened in 2009.   That extra $1,000 isn't reflected in Mediamatters graph.   And once the extra thousand was spent, they have kept spending it.
> 
> So for his first four years you have
> 
> $2,000
> $2,100
> $2,200
> $2,300
> 
> So Obama can claim a roughly 1.4 increase in spending while in fact he has spent an enormously greater amount of money than previous administrations.
> 
> And while the numbers are not truly proportionate to the actual government expenditures, THAT is honest analysis rather than the dishonest graph from Mediamatters intended for use as propaganda to avoid the actual policy discussion..



My 'cut and paste' is not from Mediamatters. The original 'graph' is from the Wall Street Journal. I used the Mediamatters graph because of SIZE.

What President put the 2 wars IN the budget? Was it Bush? 






Obama spending binge never happened






Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

 In the 2009 fiscal year  the last of George W. Bushs presidency  federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

 In fiscal 2010  the first budget under Obama  spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

 In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

 In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Offices estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

 Finally in fiscal 2013  the final budget of Obamas term  spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBOs latest budget outlook.

Over Obamas four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? Its in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress  especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obamas legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.


----------



## kaz

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals



I'll explain it to you, and it's simple.  If liberals wanted to go off and do their own thing, we'd be fine with you.  However, you want government based on 50% + 1 to use the power of guns to force your policies on everyone.  Then you take our money, to do it, kick us in the balls and blame us for it.  That ... is why liberals are hated.


----------



## Foxfyre

kaz said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll explain it to you, and it's simple.  If liberals wanted to go off and do their own thing, we'd be fine with you.  However, you want government based on 50% + 1 to use the power of guns to force your policies on everyone.  Then you take our money, to do it, kick us in the balls and blame us for it.  That ... is why liberals are hated.
Click to expand...


That's it in a nutshell.  Despite the dishonesty in who they blame and accuse for everything that goes wrong--okay, conservatives are sometimes guilty of that too--they want to be better, more noble, more righteous people.  Save the whales.  Save the planet.  Lift up the poor.  Feed the hungry.  Provide all the good things of life to whomever doesn't have them. 

But they want somebody else to pay for all that while they take the credit.

Not exactly a How to win friends and influence people bell ringer.


----------



## eflatminor

Bfgrn said:


> If Obama is the all time world champion of spending money we don't have...WHAT did Obama spend it on???



Same shit the Progressives always spend money on - programs and entitlements that are not found among the enumerated powers afforded to the federal government.  

Not to worry, they know best...


----------



## Bfgrn

eflatminor said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Obama is the all time world champion of spending money we don't have...WHAT did Obama spend it on???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same shit the Progressives always spend money on - programs and entitlements that are not found among the enumerated powers afforded to the federal government.
> 
> Not to worry, they know best...
Click to expand...


Bush and the Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives for almost a decade. WHY didn't they end 'programs and entitlements that are not found among the enumerated powers'. WHY did they grossly INCREASE the debt???

And they are NOT progressives or liberals.


----------



## Foxfyre

And I rest my case that at least one liberal on this thread is incapable of discussing an issue but focuses entirely on blame, criticisms, and accusations of people who have made policy in the past.


----------



## eflatminor

Bfgrn said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Obama is the all time world champion of spending money we don't have...WHAT did Obama spend it on???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same shit the Progressives always spend money on - programs and entitlements that are not found among the enumerated powers afforded to the federal government.
> 
> Not to worry, they know best...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush and the Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives for almost a decade. WHY didn't they end 'programs and entitlements that are not found among the enumerated powers'. WHY did they grossly INCREASE the debt???
> 
> And they are NOT progressives or liberals.
Click to expand...


You can call them whatever you like.  They spent, meddled, and increased the size of government like Progressives.  If it walks like a duck...

Once again, your blind bias prevents you from objectively considering the issues.  The problem is not the Rs or even the Ds, it's those from either party that operate outside of their enumerated powers, meddling and spending where they have no business in the first place.  They're doing more harm than good...far more.

But I'm sure YOUR guys would fix everything...


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> And I rest my case that at least one liberal on this thread is incapable of discussing an issue but focuses entirely on blame, criticisms, and accusations of people who have made policy in the past.



Wouldn't it be just wonderful if the Ronald Reagans, the George W. Bushes, Tom DeLays and all the other Republicans who were in power for almost a decade could just evaporate? 30 years of conservatism running our government has left America in a shambles.

But it CAN'T be that conservatism is at fault, can it Foxfyre? It HAS to be liberals who are at fault...SOMEHOW, even though liberals were last seen boarding Bobby Kennedy's funeral train and have been out of power since the late 1960's...

And you Foxfyre, you continue to perpetrate falsehood after falsehood. Conservatives are NOT classical liberals. A charity only society FAILED. 

The very best things done for PEOPLE in our country came from Democrats and liberals.

WHY do you folks keep ignoring David Stockman? He does not work for Mediamatters. 

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I rest my case that at least one liberal on this thread is incapable of discussing an issue but focuses entirely on blame, criticisms, and accusations of people who have made policy in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be just wonderful if the Ronald Reagans, the George W. Bushes, Tom DeLays and all the other Republicans who were in power for almost a decade could just evaporate? 30 years of conservatism running our government has left America in a shambles.
> 
> But it CAN'T be that conservatism is at fault, can it Foxfyre? It HAS to be liberals who are at fault...SOMEHOW, even though liberals were last seen boarding Bobby Kennedy's funeral train and have been out of power since the late 1960's...
> 
> And you Foxfyre, you continue to perpetrate falsehood after falsehood. Conservatives are NOT classical liberals. A charity only society FAILED.
> 
> The very best things done for PEOPLE in our country came from Democrats and liberals.
> 
> WHY do you folks keep ignoring David Stockman? He does not work for Mediamatters.
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...


Liberals want civil liberties but do not want to allow people economic liberty or control over their property.  They try to utilize the federal government toward that end.

The old style or modern social conservatives wanted more economic liberty but put restraints on civil liberties.  They try to utilize the federal government toward that end.

Modern day Libertarians (big L), in their passion for anarchy, would not allow people to form the sort of society they wish to have.  They try to utililize the federal government toward that end.

Modern day conservatives, aka libertarians (small L) aka classical liberals want the federal government to provide just enough laws and regulation to carry out its specified constitutional functions and prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other as states, and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have.

The label of Republicans, Democats, Independents, or Libertarians does not determine their ideology.  What they see as the role of the federal government does.

When David Stockman discusses that in this context, he would probably have something constructive to add to the concept.  But sins of past and present politicians and bureaucrats, regardless of their political labels, is not constructive in judging an ideology.


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democratic Party has been at the forefront of EVERY civil rights legislation for the last 60 years. The Republican party of Lincoln is dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, since you can't defend your party, you just change the names and say "nah, nah,nah, we are better than you.  We are now the party of Licoln.  We are more compassionate. We are smarter. We are more tolerant. We are not as corrupt.  Therefore, you need to let us tell you how to live, but it is you who are the authoritarians, not us."
> 
> Let me ask you this.  What *HAS* a Democrat done for us in the last 52 years?  Can you name one thing that does not equate to "drop 'em and bend over"?
> 
> Good lord, do you ever actually read your posts critically?
> 
> Imminent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know Immie, there are a lot of clueless right wing turds on this board. I never considered you as one of them. But that opinion is changing.
> 
> ALL legislation over the last 52 years that has helped people, Democrats have authored. Civil rights, voter rights, women's rights, worker's rights, immigrant's rights, Veteran's benefits, consumer protection, education for ALL.
> 
> There is an axiom: two groups of people vote Republican; millionaires and suckers.
> 
> Which group do you belong to Immie?
Click to expand...


And I never considered you a flat out liar until this post.

Come on give us actual examples rather than BS "we did all this stuff for you", because everything you just mentioned is pure bullshit.

What civil rights legislation came from Dems in the last 52 years? voter rights? women's rights?worker's rights? immigrant's rights?Veteran's benefits?consumer protection?education?  What have you really done for us except told us what you have done for us?

Next you will tell me Obamacare is good for me!  by the way before you do the major provisions of that POS was written by Reps.  Dems are thieves and liars just like there Rep counterparts.

The Lib bastards gave us Roe and condemned more than 50 million human beings to death.  Oh that is right, that is a godsend in your mind.

The only voter rights issue I can think of from libs is the attempt to allow millions of illegals to vote by squelching voter ID requirements.  Another "godsend"?

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

eflatminor said:


> bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you overlook the fact that the rate of poverty is up over that time period, sure, that helps people working at the welfare office i guess...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poverty is up because the last 30 years has been the conservative era
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you go with that sparky.  The rest of us will overlook the exponential increase in laws, regulations overall growth of government at federal and states' level....'cuz that's a result of a 'conservative era'...
> 
> I suppose detroit has been run by conservatives for the last 30 years too...
> 
> You're so blinded by bias it's impossible to have rational discourse.  Good luck with that.
Click to expand...


qft


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I rest my case that at least one liberal on this thread is incapable of discussing an issue but focuses entirely on blame, criticisms, and accusations of people who have made policy in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be just wonderful if the Ronald Reagans, the George W. Bushes, Tom DeLays and all the other Republicans who were in power for almost a decade could just evaporate? 30 years of conservatism running our government has left America in a shambles.
> 
> But it CAN'T be that conservatism is at fault, can it Foxfyre? It HAS to be liberals who are at fault...SOMEHOW, even though liberals were last seen boarding Bobby Kennedy's funeral train and have been out of power since the late 1960's...
> 
> And you Foxfyre, you continue to perpetrate falsehood after falsehood. Conservatives are NOT classical liberals. A charity only society FAILED.
> 
> The very best things done for PEOPLE in our country came from Democrats and liberals.
> 
> WHY do you folks keep ignoring David Stockman? He does not work for Mediamatters.
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals want civil liberties but do not want to allow people economic liberty or control over their property.  They try to utilize the federal government toward that end.
> 
> The old style or modern social conservatives wanted more economic liberty but put restraints on civil liberties.  They try to utilize the federal government toward that end.
> 
> Modern day Libertarians (big L), in their passion for anarchy, would not allow people to form the sort of society they wish to have.  They try to utililize the federal government toward that end.
> 
> Modern day conservatives, aka libertarians (small L) aka classical liberals want the federal government to provide just enough laws and regulation to carry out its specified constitutional functions and prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other as states, and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have.
> 
> The label of Republicans, Democats, Independents, or Libertarians does not determine their ideology.  What they see as the role of the federal government does.
> 
> When David Stockman discusses that in this context, he would probably have something constructive to add to the concept.  But sins of past and present politicians and bureaucrats, regardless of their political labels, is not constructive in judging an ideology.
Click to expand...


Whatever sort of societies we wish to have...as long as women don't choose to have an abortion?

I can go along with the "prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other as states" part, where I vehemently disagree is that we are even close to that place. Conservatives are aligned with and support the propaganda of the biggest polluters on the planet. Thousands of citizens DIE from their pollution every year. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'? Ideas like ending Medicare would do catastrophic economic damage to senior citizens. It would lower the quality of their final years and prematurely end the lives of many. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be just wonderful if the Ronald Reagans, the George W. Bushes, Tom DeLays and all the other Republicans who were in power for almost a decade could just evaporate? 30 years of conservatism running our government has left America in a shambles.
> 
> But it CAN'T be that conservatism is at fault, can it Foxfyre? It HAS to be liberals who are at fault...SOMEHOW, even though liberals were last seen boarding Bobby Kennedy's funeral train and have been out of power since the late 1960's...
> 
> And you Foxfyre, you continue to perpetrate falsehood after falsehood. Conservatives are NOT classical liberals. A charity only society FAILED.
> 
> The very best things done for PEOPLE in our country came from Democrats and liberals.
> 
> WHY do you folks keep ignoring David Stockman? He does not work for Mediamatters.
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals want civil liberties but do not want to allow people economic liberty or control over their property.  They try to utilize the federal government toward that end.
> 
> The old style or modern social conservatives wanted more economic liberty but put restraints on civil liberties.  They try to utilize the federal government toward that end.
> 
> Modern day Libertarians (big L), in their passion for anarchy, would not allow people to form the sort of society they wish to have.  They try to utililize the federal government toward that end.
> 
> Modern day conservatives, aka libertarians (small L) aka classical liberals want the federal government to provide just enough laws and regulation to carry out its specified constitutional functions and prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other as states, and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have.
> 
> The label of Republicans, Democats, Independents, or Libertarians does not determine their ideology.  What they see as the role of the federal government does.
> 
> When David Stockman discusses that in this context, he would probably have something constructive to add to the concept.  But sins of past and present politicians and bureaucrats, regardless of their political labels, is not constructive in judging an ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever sort of societies we wish to have...as long as women don't choose to have an abortion?
> 
> I can go along with the "prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other as states" part, where I vehemently disagree is that we are even close to that place. Conservatives are aligned with and support the propaganda of the biggest polluters on the planet. Thousands of citizens DIE from their pollution every year. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'? Ideas like ending Medicare would do catastrophic economic damage to senior citizens. It would lower the quality of their final years and prematurely end the lives of many. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?
Click to expand...


Still in true typical liberal fashion you have to accuse somebody, blame somebody, protest something.   Do you have any capability to discuss a concept without doing that?   Can you write a medium size paragraph describing what you think the liberal ideology is without pointing a finger at anybody by name or implication or insinuation?


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals want civil liberties but do not want to allow people economic liberty or control over their property.  They try to utilize the federal government toward that end.
> 
> The old style or modern social conservatives wanted more economic liberty but put restraints on civil liberties.  They try to utilize the federal government toward that end.
> 
> Modern day Libertarians (big L), in their passion for anarchy, would not allow people to form the sort of society they wish to have.  They try to utililize the federal government toward that end.
> 
> Modern day conservatives, aka libertarians (small L) aka classical liberals want the federal government to provide just enough laws and regulation to carry out its specified constitutional functions and prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other as states, and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have.
> 
> The label of Republicans, Democats, Independents, or Libertarians does not determine their ideology.  What they see as the role of the federal government does.
> 
> When David Stockman discusses that in this context, he would probably have something constructive to add to the concept.  But sins of past and present politicians and bureaucrats, regardless of their political labels, is not constructive in judging an ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever sort of societies we wish to have...as long as women don't choose to have an abortion?
> 
> I can go along with the "prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other as states" part, where I vehemently disagree is that we are even close to that place. Conservatives are aligned with and support the propaganda of the biggest polluters on the planet. Thousands of citizens DIE from their pollution every year. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'? Ideas like ending Medicare would do catastrophic economic damage to senior citizens. It would lower the quality of their final years and prematurely end the lives of many. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Still in true typical liberal fashion* you have to accuse somebody, blame somebody, protest something.   Do you have any capability to discuss a concept without doing that?   Can you write a medium size paragraph describing what you think the liberal ideology is without pointing a finger at anybody by name or implication or insinuation?
Click to expand...


I have stated my beliefs plenty of times. And I have read plenty of your posts. I asked you very pertinent questions about what conservatives believe is acceptable.

Are you unable or unwilling to answer them Foxfyre? Would it expose conservatism for what it really is, social Darwinism, or reinforce my signature line?

Liberalism is ALL about putting people first, before corporate profits, before ideology and before dogma.

You are doing what you accuse me of...LOL


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever sort of societies we wish to have...as long as women don't choose to have an abortion?
> 
> I can go along with the "prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other as states" part, where I vehemently disagree is that we are even close to that place. Conservatives are aligned with and support the propaganda of the biggest polluters on the planet. Thousands of citizens DIE from their pollution every year. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'? Ideas like ending Medicare would do catastrophic economic damage to senior citizens. It would lower the quality of their final years and prematurely end the lives of many. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Still in true typical liberal fashion* you have to accuse somebody, blame somebody, protest something.   Do you have any capability to discuss a concept without doing that?   Can you write a medium size paragraph describing what you think the liberal ideology is without pointing a finger at anybody by name or implication or insinuation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have stated my beliefs plenty of times. And I have read plenty of your posts. I asked you very pertinent questions about what conservatives believe is acceptable.
> 
> Are you unable or unwilling to answer them Foxfyre? Would it expose conservatism for what it really is, social Darwinism, or reinforce my signature line?
> 
> Liberalism is ALL about putting people first, before corporate profits, before ideology and before dogma.
> 
> You are doing what you accuse me of...LOL
Click to expand...


Am I?  I am accusing you of being unable to write a medium size paragraph articulating what modern American liberalism is.  My theory is that it is indeed a very rare liberal who can do that.  Most modern American liberals seem to base their entire belief system on accusing, blaming, and criticizing others while they presume a superior morality and niceness.

As a modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka classical libertarian, I simply want control of my own choices and ability to direct my own destiny as much as I am able.  I believe God gave us rights that a just government recognizes and protects as unalienable.  A right is defined as that which requires no contribution or participation by another person.  As a true modern conservative sees it, I do not have the right to infringe on somebody else's rights nor should anybody have ability to infringe with impunity on mine. And with that in mind, it is our unalienable right to choose to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit however we choose to do that while respecting each other's unalienable rights.  The role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

Your turn.


----------



## thanatos144

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Still in true typical liberal fashion* you have to accuse somebody, blame somebody, protest something.   Do you have any capability to discuss a concept without doing that?   Can you write a medium size paragraph describing what you think the liberal ideology is without pointing a finger at anybody by name or implication or insinuation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have stated my beliefs plenty of times. And I have read plenty of your posts. I asked you very pertinent questions about what conservatives believe is acceptable.
> 
> Are you unable or unwilling to answer them Foxfyre? Would it expose conservatism for what it really is, social Darwinism, or reinforce my signature line?
> 
> Liberalism is ALL about putting people first, before corporate profits, before ideology and before dogma.
> 
> You are doing what you accuse me of...LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I?  I am accusing you of being unable to write a medium size paragraph articulating what modern American liberalism is.  My theory is that it is indeed a very rare liberal who can do that.  Most modern American liberals seem to base their entire belief system on accusing, blaming, and criticizing others while they presume a superior morality and niceness.
> 
> As a modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka classical libertarian, I simply want control of my own choices and ability to direct my own destiny as much as I am able.  I believe God gave us rights that a just government recognizes and protects as unalienable.  A right is defined as that which requires no contribution or participation by another person.  As a true modern conservative sees it, I do not have the right to infringe on somebody else's rights nor should anybody have ability to infringe with impunity on mine. And with that in mind, it is our unalienable right to choose to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit.  The role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.
> 
> Your turn.
Click to expand...


you just described about 90 percent of the Libertarians online


----------



## Smilebong

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Still in true typical liberal fashion* you have to accuse somebody, blame somebody, protest something.   Do you have any capability to discuss a concept without doing that?   Can you write a medium size paragraph describing what you think the liberal ideology is without pointing a finger at anybody by name or implication or insinuation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have stated my beliefs plenty of times. And I have read plenty of your posts. I asked you very pertinent questions about what conservatives believe is acceptable.
> 
> Are you unable or unwilling to answer them Foxfyre? Would it expose conservatism for what it really is, social Darwinism, or reinforce my signature line?
> 
> Liberalism is ALL about putting people first, before corporate profits, before ideology and before dogma.
> 
> You are doing what you accuse me of...LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I?  I am accusing you of being unable to write a medium size paragraph articulating what modern American liberalism is.  My theory is that it is indeed a very rare liberal who can do that.  Most modern American liberals seem to base their entire belief system on accusing, blaming, and criticizing others while they presume a superior morality and niceness.
> 
> As a modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka classical libertarian, I simply want control of my own choices and ability to direct my own destiny as much as I am able.  I believe God gave us rights that a just government recognizes and protects as unalienable.  A right is defined as that which requires no contribution or participation by another person.  As a true modern conservative sees it, I do not have the right to infringe on somebody else's rights nor should anybody have ability to infringe with impunity on mine. And with that in mind, it is our unalienable right to choose to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit however we choose to do that while respecting each other's unalienable rights.  The role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.
> 
> Your turn.
Click to expand...


I don't mean you mess up your mojo by interrupting, but this is a post for the ages.  You are very well spoken.


----------



## Foxfyre

thanatos144 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have stated my beliefs plenty of times. And I have read plenty of your posts. I asked you very pertinent questions about what conservatives believe is acceptable.
> 
> Are you unable or unwilling to answer them Foxfyre? Would it expose conservatism for what it really is, social Darwinism, or reinforce my signature line?
> 
> Liberalism is ALL about putting people first, before corporate profits, before ideology and before dogma.
> 
> You are doing what you accuse me of...LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I?  I am accusing you of being unable to write a medium size paragraph articulating what modern American liberalism is.  My theory is that it is indeed a very rare liberal who can do that.  Most modern American liberals seem to base their entire belief system on accusing, blaming, and criticizing others while they presume a superior morality and niceness.
> 
> As a modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka classical libertarian, I simply want control of my own choices and ability to direct my own destiny as much as I am able.  I believe God gave us rights that a just government recognizes and protects as unalienable.  A right is defined as that which requires no contribution or participation by another person.  As a true modern conservative sees it, I do not have the right to infringe on somebody else's rights nor should anybody have ability to infringe with impunity on mine. And with that in mind, it is our unalienable right to choose to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit.  The role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you just described about 90 percent of the Libertarians online
Click to expand...


I think I probably described many of those who are libertarian with a little "L".  But I have found many Libertarians (capital "L") to be opposed to much of mutually agreed social contract.  And many are as pushy as liberals or social conservatives in wanting the federal government to create the kind of society they wish to have.

In my view, there is no freedom if a majority of the people are forbidden to mutually agree on the kind of neighborhood or city or state they wish to have if anybody is opposed to that.  I use the example of that pesky creche on the courthouse lawn for instance.  Freedom allows it to be there if the community wants it there.  Or not to be there if the community doesn't want it there.  But social contract simply can't happen if one or two people can dictate to the rest how it is going to be.


----------



## Dragonlady

Foxfyre said:


> In my view, there is no freedom if a majority of the people are forbidden to mutually agree on the kind of neighborhood or city or state they wish to have if anybody is opposed to that.  I use the example of that pesky creche on the courthouse lawn for instance.  Freedom allows it to be there if the community wants it there.  Or not to be there if the community doesn't want it there.  But social contract simply can't happen if one or two people can dictate to the rest how it is going to be.



I consider the creche on the courthouse lawn an inappropriate symbol in a country where there is a clear separation between church and state.  A creche is an appropriate symbol outside a church but not a courthouse.

I am tired of my fellow Christians demanding their THEIR symbols be forced onto securlar real estate.  Not appropriate at all.


----------



## lynn63

Until people stop assigning labels based on their ideology political views based on a few responses, we will always be divided and will never unite together to fight for our rights and put in motion ideas that would make society a better place for all of us.

The government wants people divided and that is why we have two political parties working side by side in government.  One will act like they care about the citizens and make all kinds of promises to get elected knowing they don't have fulfill those promises because the other party will not allow it.

Its a typical good cop, bad cop mentality and its very effective in preventing the citizens from uniting and eliminating government altogether.  The government loves this kind of thread post since it protects them from anyone trying to see the government as one entity and hold them accountable for their actions.


----------



## thanatos144

lynn63 said:


> Until people stop assigning labels based on their ideology political views based on a few responses, we will always be divided and will never unite together to fight for our rights and put in motion ideas that would make society a better place for all of us.
> 
> The government wants people divided and that is why we have two political parties working side by side in government.  One will act like they care about the citizens and make all kinds of promises to get elected knowing they don't have fulfill those promises because the other party will not allow it.
> 
> Its a typical good cop, bad cop mentality and its very effective in preventing the citizens from uniting and eliminating government altogether.  The government loves this kind of thread post since it protects them from anyone trying to see the government as one entity and hold them accountable for their actions.



Say we all unite then like your hippie utopia dream now what are we uniting for? you have to understand we have completely  opposing ideas for how the country should be ran


----------



## thanatos144

we can't I'll just join hands and sing camp songs to make all the problems in this country go away


----------



## Foxfyre

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my view, there is no freedom if a majority of the people are forbidden to mutually agree on the kind of neighborhood or city or state they wish to have if anybody is opposed to that.  I use the example of that pesky creche on the courthouse lawn for instance.  Freedom allows it to be there if the community wants it there.  Or not to be there if the community doesn't want it there.  But social contract simply can't happen if one or two people can dictate to the rest how it is going to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider the creche on the courthouse lawn an inappropriate symbol in a country where there is a clear separation between church and state.  A creche is an appropriate symbol outside a church but not a courthouse.
> 
> I am tired of my fellow Christians demanding their THEIR symbols be forced onto securlar real estate.  Not appropriate at all.
Click to expand...


But if the majority of the community are Christian or just simply people who get a kick out of Christmas, why should they be denied the enjoyment of that creche if they choose to have one?   How does that violate your rights or require you to contribute or participate in any way?  How can there be freedom of religion--a right to the free exercise of our religion--unless it can be included in the social contract if the people want it included?


----------



## Foxfyre

lynn63 said:


> Until people stop assigning labels based on their ideology political views based on a few responses, we will always be divided and will never unite together to fight for our rights and put in motion ideas that would make society a better place for all of us.
> 
> The government wants people divided and that is why we have two political parties working side by side in government.  One will act like they care about the citizens and make all kinds of promises to get elected knowing they don't have fulfill those promises because the other party will not allow it.
> 
> Its a typical good cop, bad cop mentality and its very effective in preventing the citizens from uniting and eliminating government altogether.  The government loves this kind of thread post since it protects them from anyone trying to see the government as one entity and hold them accountable for their actions.



In my opinion, if most Americans could just agree on what freedom is and that it is far better than anything in second place, it wouldn't matter what we believe or how many political parties there are.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my view, there is no freedom if a majority of the people are forbidden to mutually agree on the kind of neighborhood or city or state they wish to have if anybody is opposed to that.  I use the example of that pesky creche on the courthouse lawn for instance.  Freedom allows it to be there if the community wants it there.  Or not to be there if the community doesn't want it there.  But social contract simply can't happen if one or two people can dictate to the rest how it is going to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider the creche on the courthouse lawn an inappropriate symbol in a country where there is a clear separation between church and state.  A creche is an appropriate symbol outside a church but not a courthouse.
> 
> I am tired of my fellow Christians demanding their THEIR symbols be forced onto securlar real estate.  Not appropriate at all.
Click to expand...


^ liberals are so weak minded they believe that a display ESTABLISHES a religion

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Foxfyre

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my view, there is no freedom if a majority of the people are forbidden to mutually agree on the kind of neighborhood or city or state they wish to have if anybody is opposed to that.  I use the example of that pesky creche on the courthouse lawn for instance.  Freedom allows it to be there if the community wants it there.  Or not to be there if the community doesn't want it there.  But social contract simply can't happen if one or two people can dictate to the rest how it is going to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider the creche on the courthouse lawn an inappropriate symbol in a country where there is a clear separation between church and state.  A creche is an appropriate symbol outside a church but not a courthouse.
> 
> I am tired of my fellow Christians demanding their THEIR symbols be forced onto securlar real estate.  Not appropriate at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ liberals are so weak minded they believe that a display ESTABLISHES a religion
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...


Well I really don't want to get into a religion and separation of church and state and all that.  The creche is simply an illustration.   The issue is not weak or strong minds or what anybody thinks something does or does not do.

The issue is whether we are free to live our lives as we choose to live them--as we chose to live our life individually or in cooperation with others.  Once we give the federal government the power to tell everybody how they must live their lives or how they cannot live their lives, there is no freedom.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Still in true typical liberal fashion* you have to accuse somebody, blame somebody, protest something.   Do you have any capability to discuss a concept without doing that?   Can you write a medium size paragraph describing what you think the liberal ideology is without pointing a finger at anybody by name or implication or insinuation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have stated my beliefs plenty of times. And I have read plenty of your posts. I asked you very pertinent questions about what conservatives believe is acceptable.
> 
> Are you unable or unwilling to answer them Foxfyre? Would it expose conservatism for what it really is, social Darwinism, or reinforce my signature line?
> 
> Liberalism is ALL about putting people first, before corporate profits, before ideology and before dogma.
> 
> You are doing what you accuse me of...LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I?  I am accusing you of being unable to write a medium size paragraph articulating what modern American liberalism is.  My theory is that it is indeed a very rare liberal who can do that.  Most modern American liberals seem to base their entire belief system on accusing, blaming, and criticizing others while they presume a superior morality and niceness.
> 
> As a modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka classical libertarian, I simply want control of my own choices and ability to direct my own destiny as much as I am able.  I believe God gave us rights that a just government recognizes and protects as unalienable.  A right is defined as that which requires no contribution or participation by another person.  As a true modern conservative sees it, I do not have the right to infringe on somebody else's rights nor should anybody have ability to infringe with impunity on mine. And with that in mind, it is our unalienable right to choose to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit however we choose to do that while respecting each other's unalienable rights.  The role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.
> 
> Your turn.
Click to expand...


Empty rhetoric. I don't subscribe to your constant self-centered and pretentious commentary.

Two questions:

1) Conservatives are aligned with and support the propaganda of the biggest polluters on the planet. Thousands of citizens DIE from their pollution every year. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'? 

2) Ideas like ending Medicare would do catastrophic economic damage to senior citizens. It would lower the quality of their final years and prematurely end the lives of many. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have stated my beliefs plenty of times. And I have read plenty of your posts. I asked you very pertinent questions about what conservatives believe is acceptable.
> 
> Are you unable or unwilling to answer them Foxfyre? Would it expose conservatism for what it really is, social Darwinism, or reinforce my signature line?
> 
> Liberalism is ALL about putting people first, before corporate profits, before ideology and before dogma.
> 
> You are doing what you accuse me of...LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I?  I am accusing you of being unable to write a medium size paragraph articulating what modern American liberalism is.  My theory is that it is indeed a very rare liberal who can do that.  Most modern American liberals seem to base their entire belief system on accusing, blaming, and criticizing others while they presume a superior morality and niceness.
> 
> As a modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka classical libertarian, I simply want control of my own choices and ability to direct my own destiny as much as I am able.  I believe God gave us rights that a just government recognizes and protects as unalienable.  A right is defined as that which requires no contribution or participation by another person.  As a true modern conservative sees it, I do not have the right to infringe on somebody else's rights nor should anybody have ability to infringe with impunity on mine. And with that in mind, it is our unalienable right to choose to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit however we choose to do that while respecting each other's unalienable rights.  The role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Empty rhetoric. I don't subscribe to your constant self-centered and pretentious commentary.
> 
> Two questions:
> 
> 1) Conservatives are aligned with and support the propaganda of the biggest polluters on the planet. Thousands of citizens DIE from their pollution every year. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?
> 
> 2) Ideas like ending Medicare would do catastrophic economic damage to senior citizens. It would lower the quality of their final years and prematurely end the lives of many. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?
Click to expand...


^ Liberals are absolutely the most hysterical and pathological species on the planet


----------



## Bfgrn

CrusaderFrank said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I?  I am accusing you of being unable to write a medium size paragraph articulating what modern American liberalism is.  My theory is that it is indeed a very rare liberal who can do that.  Most modern American liberals seem to base their entire belief system on accusing, blaming, and criticizing others while they presume a superior morality and niceness.
> 
> As a modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka classical libertarian, I simply want control of my own choices and ability to direct my own destiny as much as I am able.  I believe God gave us rights that a just government recognizes and protects as unalienable.  A right is defined as that which requires no contribution or participation by another person.  As a true modern conservative sees it, I do not have the right to infringe on somebody else's rights nor should anybody have ability to infringe with impunity on mine. And with that in mind, it is our unalienable right to choose to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit however we choose to do that while respecting each other's unalienable rights.  The role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empty rhetoric. I don't subscribe to your constant self-centered and pretentious commentary.
> 
> Two questions:
> 
> 1) Conservatives are aligned with and support the propaganda of the biggest polluters on the planet. Thousands of citizens DIE from their pollution every year. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?
> 
> 2) Ideas like ending Medicare would do catastrophic economic damage to senior citizens. It would lower the quality of their final years and prematurely end the lives of many. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ Liberals are absolutely the most hysterical and pathological species on the planet
Click to expand...


There you go Frank. The usual conservative response when confronted with the truth...denial and accusations of exaggeration.

Have you ever heard of a bleeding heart Republican?
Paul Craig Roberts - the father of Reaganomics


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have stated my beliefs plenty of times. And I have read plenty of your posts. I asked you very pertinent questions about what conservatives believe is acceptable.
> 
> Are you unable or unwilling to answer them Foxfyre? Would it expose conservatism for what it really is, social Darwinism, or reinforce my signature line?
> 
> Liberalism is ALL about putting people first, before corporate profits, before ideology and before dogma.
> 
> You are doing what you accuse me of...LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I?  I am accusing you of being unable to write a medium size paragraph articulating what modern American liberalism is.  My theory is that it is indeed a very rare liberal who can do that.  Most modern American liberals seem to base their entire belief system on accusing, blaming, and criticizing others while they presume a superior morality and niceness.
> 
> As a modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka classical libertarian, I simply want control of my own choices and ability to direct my own destiny as much as I am able.  I believe God gave us rights that a just government recognizes and protects as unalienable.  A right is defined as that which requires no contribution or participation by another person.  As a true modern conservative sees it, I do not have the right to infringe on somebody else's rights nor should anybody have ability to infringe with impunity on mine. And with that in mind, it is our unalienable right to choose to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit however we choose to do that while respecting each other's unalienable rights.  The role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Empty rhetoric. I don't subscribe to your constant self-centered and pretentious commentary.
> 
> Two questions:
> 
> 1) Conservatives are aligned with and support the propaganda of the biggest polluters on the planet. Thousands of citizens DIE from their pollution every year. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?
> 
> 2) Ideas like ending Medicare would do catastrophic economic damage to senior citizens. It would lower the quality of their final years and prematurely end the lives of many. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?
Click to expand...


I rest my case.  As a dedicated liberal, again and again you demonstrate that  you are incapable of discussing a concept and are limited to blaming, accusing, and characterizing other people.  You are incapable of thinking about anything objectively.  And because you cannot articulate even a definition of liberalism and won't accept my definition of modern American conservatism you therefore cannot conceive of a concept that somebody can be both a modern day conservative aka classical liberal AND be passionate about clean air, clean water, clean soil etc.   You cannot conceive of something as radical as ending Medicare at the federal level AND not hurting seniors.

Again protesting the title of the thread but appreciating the subject matter, we don't hate liberals.  But we do hate liberalism that cannot see the unintended negative consequences of what they promote and who would enslave all the people in order to a commit to an ideology in which some must be enslaved to serve others.


----------



## American_Jihad

*25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals*​
John Hawkins | May 11, 2013 

Is every liberal an immoral, nasty tempered, habitual liar who accuses people of racism for fun and trashes his own country because he thinks it makes him look sophisticated? Of course, not! On the other hand, is that a fairly accurate description of most liberals in politics? Yes, it is. Most of them aren't evil per se, but as Margaret Thatcher said,


"Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag." 
Liberals view themselves as good people because they're liberals. People who are outside of that ugly little bit of circular reasoning don't have such a benign view of their horrible behavior. So, what reason could you have to dislike liberals?

1) Only liberals would be cruel enough to pick on kids running lemonade stands with a permit, children putting on Christmas plays at school and the Boy Scouts.

2) Because the closest thing to Sodom and Gomorrah in the modern world is San Francisco and Berkeley. 

3) Whether you're talking about cop killers, terrorists, radical Islamists or dictators, all you have to do is say, "I hate America," and liberals start to sympathize with you.

4) Liberals are actually bothered by people who do love America. On the rare occasion when you do see a liberal waving a flag, look for a camera.


...


23) Because liberals are unable to ever admit they're wrong, they systematically ruin and destroy everything they become involved with and then either point the finger elsewhere or demand even more government involvement to fix the problems they created.

*24) Detroit &#8211; and, yes, liberals did that.*

25) Even "liberal Christians" are generally supportive of other liberals who attack Christianity, which is why "liberal Christians" is in quotes.

25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals - John Hawkins - Page full


----------



## thanatos144

I will give you one reason to hate liberals.................................................. Detroit.


----------



## Mr. H.

I never really "hated" Liberals until I signed up here. I feel that now I understand them more than over before. And to understand a Liberal is... to hate a Liberal.


----------



## Immanuel

Mr. H. said:


> I never really "hated" Liberals until I signed up here. I feel that now I understand them more than over before. And to understand a Liberal is... to hate a Liberal.



I don't hate liberals.  I don't like politicians.  Common everyday liberals are good people even if they are wrong on certain things, but politicians of every ilk are authoritarian pricks who deserve our scorn.  It is those kinds of arrogant people that I despise even though Jesus says I should love my neighbor.  I pray I can use the excuse  when i get to Heaven, that I didn't live next door to any of them; therefore, they were not my neighbors!  

Immie

PS YES, I am a sinner!


----------



## Mr. H.

Immanuel said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never really "hated" Liberals until I signed up here. I feel that now I understand them more than over before. And to understand a Liberal is... to hate a Liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate liberals.  I don't like politicians.  Common everyday liberals are good people even if they are wrong on certain things, but politicians of every ilk are authoritarian pricks who deserve our scorn.  It is those kinds of arrogant people that I despise even though Jesus says I should love my neighbor.  I pray I can use the excuse  when i get to Heaven, that I didn't live next door to any of them; therefore, they were not my neighbors!
> 
> Immie
> 
> PS YES, I am a sinner!
Click to expand...


So, we are reflections of politicians? We must be since we're the ones that put them in office. 

I know and like many politicians. Most of them Conservative of course. I like Jesse Jackson Jr. because I had occasion to conference with him in person. The kid is really fucked up. I could see the self-doubt in his eyes. Yet he's still a damn Liberal idiot. 

There's no such thing as an "everyday Liberal". They are Liberals. And they are hell-bent on cutting the rug out from under the very tenets that make this nation what it once was. Before Obama showed up. 

Re: Jesus - he done left Chicago, and he's bound for New Orleans. 

Regardless of to whom you live next door- lock the door.


----------



## Immanuel

Mr. H. said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never really "hated" Liberals until I signed up here. I feel that now I understand them more than over before. And to understand a Liberal is... to hate a Liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate liberals.  I don't like politicians.  Common everyday liberals are good people even if they are wrong on certain things, but politicians of every ilk are authoritarian pricks who deserve our scorn.  It is those kinds of arrogant people that I despise even though Jesus says I should love my neighbor.  I pray I can use the excuse  when i get to Heaven, that I didn't live next door to any of them; therefore, they were not my neighbors!
> 
> Immie
> 
> PS YES, I am a sinner!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, we are reflections of politicians? We must be since we're the ones that put them in office.
> 
> I know and like many politicians. Most of them Conservative of course. I like Jesse Jackson Jr. because I had occasion to conference with him in person. The kid is really fucked up. I could see the self-doubt in his eyes. Yet he's still a damn Liberal idiot.
> 
> There's no such thing as an "everyday Liberal". They are Liberals. And they are hell-bent on cutting the rug out from under the very tenets that make this nation what it once was. Before Obama showed up.
> 
> Re: Jesus - he done left Chicago, and he's bound for New Orleans.
> 
> Regardless of to whom you live next door- lock the door.
Click to expand...


I have to disagree.  There are some really good people out there who are liberal who love this country too and want the best for it.  Then there are politicians... Few (if any) of whom are "conservative" even if they claim to be.  Most of those who claim to be are neo-cons who are worse than progressives.

Immie


----------



## JimBowie1958

Immanuel said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate liberals.  I don't like politicians.  Common everyday liberals are good people even if they are wrong on certain things, but politicians of every ilk are authoritarian pricks who deserve our scorn.  It is those kinds of arrogant people that I despise even though Jesus says I should love my neighbor.  I pray I can use the excuse  when i get to Heaven, that I didn't live next door to any of them; therefore, they were not my neighbors!
> 
> Immie
> 
> PS YES, I am a sinner!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, we are reflections of politicians? We must be since we're the ones that put them in office.
> 
> I know and like many politicians. Most of them Conservative of course. I like Jesse Jackson Jr. because I had occasion to conference with him in person. The kid is really fucked up. I could see the self-doubt in his eyes. Yet he's still a damn Liberal idiot.
> 
> There's no such thing as an "everyday Liberal". They are Liberals. And they are hell-bent on cutting the rug out from under the very tenets that make this nation what it once was. Before Obama showed up.
> 
> Re: Jesus - he done left Chicago, and he's bound for New Orleans.
> 
> Regardless of to whom you live next door- lock the door.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to disagree.  There are some really good people out there who are liberal who love this country too and want the best for it.  Then there are politicians... Few (if any) of whom are "conservative" even if they claim to be.  Most of those who claim to be are neo-cons who are worse than progressives.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Neo-cons are fascist scum. That being said, classic liberals are not the libtards that we see every day in the media.

The media gets the far left libtards and the neocon fascists to go at each other as better spectator sport, meanwhile they ignore the reasonable classic liberals and cultural conservatives whose philosophies have long established the basis of law and culture in our nation.


----------



## Foxfyre

The neo-cons are not modern American conservatives.  The only difference between them and the liberals is what they want to spend the money on, but they all want to spend it.  They all look for the federal government to create the nation they think they want.   Okay, another diference between the neo-cons and the liberals is that the neo-cons have a much better grasp on how the free market works and the virtues of allowing it to work.   Likewise social conservatives look to the federal government to enforce the morality they see as important, and that also removes them from the modern American conservative aka classical liberal category.   

As the statist liberals or political class are the most extreme in their zest to control other people and/or punish them if they fail to toe the liberal line, they are the least likable and most offensive.  But they all--liberals, neo-cons, social conservatives are all a threat to our liberties when they look to the federal government to achieve their goals. 

That does not make them scum in any sense of the word.  It only makes them misguided as you cannot have both big government power and liberty.   But it is possible to be wrong and still be okay.

The true modern American conservatives are reflected in the Tea Party groups, the 9/12ers, the constitutionalists and that is why those groups are so threatening to liberals and neo-cons alike.  And why the liberals and neo-cons, aided and abetted by a surrogate media, do their damndest to diminish, trash, marginalize, and discredit the freedom loving groups.


----------



## thanatos144

Bla blah blah not being oldschool democrat aka libertarian does not make one a neo con


----------



## Dragonlady

Foxfyre said:


> Okay, another diference between the neo-cons and the liberals is that the neo-cons have a much better grasp on how the free market works and the virtues of allowing it to work.   Likewise social conservatives look to the federal government to enforce the morality they see as important, and that also removes them from the modern American conservative aka classical liberal category.



Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives.  That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.

Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana.  Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.


----------



## Foxfyre

Llibertarians, neither big "L" nor little "L" libertarians, have EVER been oldschool democrats or neo-cons.  But both old school and modern Democrats and social conservatives and neo-cons all use big government for their respective goals and thereby erode our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities.


----------



## Bfgrn

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, another diference between the neo-cons and the liberals is that the neo-cons have a much better grasp on how the free market works and the virtues of allowing it to work.   Likewise social conservatives look to the federal government to enforce the morality they see as important, and that also removes them from the modern American conservative aka classical liberal category.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives.  That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.
> 
> Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana.  Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.
Click to expand...


The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

Blind Faith

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarcks Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.

The persistently mediocre track record of laissez faire casts doubt on the claim that an economy free from government interference invariably maximizes the wealth of society. In fact, there are sound reasons the pure free market must underperform well-focused mixed economies.

But despite laissez faires mediocre track record and despite powerful arguments that it cannot possibly provide what it promises, the notion of the unqualified benefit of the free market has become deeply embedded in our mythology. Apologists have exulted in claims that glorify free market mythology at the expense of reality, and also at the expense of society. Free market principles, even though they have failed in economics, have been eagerly applied to sectors ranging from politics to education, where they have contributed to societal dysfunction.

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history. 

Kenneth Friedman - Myths Of The Free Market

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie  deliberate, contrived and dishonest  but the myth  persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## Foxfyre

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, another diference between the neo-cons and the liberals is that the neo-cons have a much better grasp on how the free market works and the virtues of allowing it to work.   Likewise social conservatives look to the federal government to enforce the morality they see as important, and that also removes them from the modern American conservative aka classical liberal category.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives.  That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.
> 
> Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana.  Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.
Click to expand...


I know not a single American conservative who has EVER said that the free market needs no regulation at all.  However, the Founders intended the Federal Government to secure our rights and enact sufficient laws to prevent us from doing environmental, economic, or physical violence with impunity to each other, but then the Federal Government would leave us alone to live our lives as we chose to do, form whatever sort of societies we wished to have, and the free market would generate unprecedented prosperity and opportunity.

And it worked like a charm until the government started meddling.  And now we have a goverment that assumes authority over almost all of our lives--religious, social, economic, and in every other way-- and we have precious little liberty left.

And that is great so far as most of our modern American liberals are concerned.  And it grieves the hearts of freedom loving people.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, another diference between the neo-cons and the liberals is that the neo-cons have a much better grasp on how the free market works and the virtues of allowing it to work.   Likewise social conservatives look to the federal government to enforce the morality they see as important, and that also removes them from the modern American conservative aka classical liberal category.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives.  That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.
> 
> Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana.  Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know not a single American conservative who has EVER said that the free market needs no regulation at all.  However, the Founders intended the Federal Government to secure our rights and enact sufficient laws to prevent us from doing environmental, economic, or physical violence with impunity to each other, but then the Federal Government would leave us alone to live our lives as we chose to do, form whatever sort of societies we wished to have, and the free market would generate unprecedented prosperity and opportunity.
> 
> And it worked like a charm until the government started meddling.  And now we have a goverment that assumes authority over almost all of our lives--religious, social, economic, and in every other way-- and we have precious little liberty left.
> 
> And that is great so far as most of our modern American liberals are concerned.  And it grieves the hearts of freedom loving people.
Click to expand...


Enron. Tell me how government is to blame?


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives.  That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.
> 
> Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana.  Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know not a single American conservative who has EVER said that the free market needs no regulation at all.  However, the Founders intended the Federal Government to secure our rights and enact sufficient laws to prevent us from doing environmental, economic, or physical violence with impunity to each other, but then the Federal Government would leave us alone to live our lives as we chose to do, form whatever sort of societies we wished to have, and the free market would generate unprecedented prosperity and opportunity.
> 
> And it worked like a charm until the government started meddling.  And now we have a goverment that assumes authority over almost all of our lives--religious, social, economic, and in every other way-- and we have precious little liberty left.
> 
> And that is great so far as most of our modern American liberals are concerned.  And it grieves the hearts of freedom loving people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enron. Tell me how government is to blame?
Click to expand...


To answer your question, the LewRockwell folks already did the research and here you go.
The Truth About Enron ?

Now suppose Enron had been held to the same standards as every other business.  Suppose the people had ownership and control over their retirement plans.  Suppose the government enforced anti trust laws and allowed Enron to sink or swim on its own merits.  Do you think as much damage would have been done to innocent people when Enron failed, if it in fact would have failed?

Whenever government presumes to pick winners and losers and/or operates to punish success and reward failure--that is a direct result of the new liberalism--we all eventually suffer the unintended negative consequences.   Giving people freedom to achieve as much as they are capable or to fail if that is the way the cookie crumbles is much MUCH better for society as a whole.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know not a single American conservative who has EVER said that the free market needs no regulation at all.  However, the Founders intended the Federal Government to secure our rights and enact sufficient laws to prevent us from doing environmental, economic, or physical violence with impunity to each other, but then the Federal Government would leave us alone to live our lives as we chose to do, form whatever sort of societies we wished to have, and the free market would generate unprecedented prosperity and opportunity.
> 
> And it worked like a charm until the government started meddling.  And now we have a goverment that assumes authority over almost all of our lives--religious, social, economic, and in every other way-- and we have precious little liberty left.
> 
> And that is great so far as most of our modern American liberals are concerned.  And it grieves the hearts of freedom loving people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enron. Tell me how government is to blame?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To answer your question, the LewRockwell folks already did the research and here you go.
> The Truth About Enron ?
> 
> Now suppose Enron had been held to the same standards as every other business.  Suppose the people had ownership and control over their retirement plans.  Suppose the government enforced anti trust laws and allowed Enron to sink or swim on its own merits.  Do you think as much damage would have been done to innocent people when Enron failed, if it in fact would have failed?
> 
> Whenever government presumes to pick winners and losers and/or operates to punish success and reward failure--that is a direct result of the new liberalism--we all eventually suffer the unintended negative consequences.   Giving people freedom to achieve as much as they are capable or to fail if that is the way the cookie crumbles is much MUCH better for society as a whole.
Click to expand...


It was deregulation of the energy market that opened the door for Enron.

You mentioned our founding fathers earlier. Have you ever looked into how they treated corporations?

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

*Early laws regulating corporations in America*

    *Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

    *Corporations licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

    *The state legislature could revoke a corporations charter if it misbehaved.

    *The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

    *As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldnt break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were just doing their job when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

    *Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

    *Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

    *Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted in perpetuity, as is now the practice).

    *Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

    *Corporations real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

    *Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

    *Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

    *State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

    *All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

Does that sound like a bunch of laissez-faire libertarians?


----------



## Foxfyre

Like I said Bfgn, as a liberal there is something in your DNA or the water you drink or something that makes you incapable of discussing a concept.  If all people were held to the same standards of liberty, and the government didn't pick winners or losers, the only regulation we would need is to prevent us, in any form, from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other with impunity.  And if the federal government was prevented, as it once was, from taking money and/or privilege from one citizen and providing it for the benefit of another, corporate donations wouldn't matter would they because nobody could benefit themselves without benefitting everybody else.

The concept of liberty is so simple for the modern American conservative, aka classical liberal.  And so incomprehensable to the modern American liberal.


----------



## numan

Foxfyre said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives.  That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.
> 
> Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana.  Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.
> 
> 
> 
> I know not a single American conservative who has EVER said that the free market needs no regulation at all.  However, the Founders intended the Federal Government to secure our rights and enact sufficient laws to prevent us from doing environmental, economic, or physical violence with impunity to each other, but then the Federal Government would leave us alone to live our lives as we chose to do, form whatever sort of societies we wished to have, and the free market would generate unprecedented prosperity and opportunity.
> 
> And it worked like a charm until the government started meddling.  And now we have a goverment that assumes authority over almost all of our lives--religious, social, economic, and in every other way-- and we have precious little liberty left.
Click to expand...

I think anyone who imagines that, in the 21st century, freedom for the individual can be attained with 18th century ideas and procedures should be considered certifiably insane.

If the words "freedom" and "liberty" are to be anything more than patriotic blither, the archaic, sclerotic US Constitution should be thrown in the wastebasket, and we should do the hard work of framing a system of government that would work in the modern world.

.


----------



## dblack

numan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives.  That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.
> 
> Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana.  Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.
> 
> 
> 
> I know not a single American conservative who has EVER said that the free market needs no regulation at all.  However, the Founders intended the Federal Government to secure our rights and enact sufficient laws to prevent us from doing environmental, economic, or physical violence with impunity to each other, but then the Federal Government would leave us alone to live our lives as we chose to do, form whatever sort of societies we wished to have, and the free market would generate unprecedented prosperity and opportunity.
> 
> And it worked like a charm until the government started meddling.  And now we have a goverment that assumes authority over almost all of our lives--religious, social, economic, and in every other way-- and we have precious little liberty left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think anyone who imagines that, in the 21st century, freedom for the individual can be attained with 18th century ideas and procedures should be considered certifiably insane.
> 
> If the words "freedom" and "liberty" are to be anything more than patriotic blither, the archaic, sclerotic US Constitution should be thrown in the wastebasket, and we should do the hard work of framing a system of government that would work in the modern world.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Interesting. And in rewriting the Constitution, should we trust people who use words like liberty and freedom with quotes, and always with an air of disdain?


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Like I said Bfgn, as a liberal there is something in your DNA or the water you drink or something that makes you incapable of discussing a concept.  If all people were held to the same standards of liberty, and the government didn't pick winners or losers, the only regulation we would need is to prevent us, in any form, from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other with impunity.  And if the federal government was prevented, as it once was, from taking money and/or privilege from one citizen and providing it for the benefit of another, corporate donations wouldn't matter would they because nobody could benefit themselves without benefitting everybody else.
> 
> The concept of liberty is so simple for the modern American conservative, aka classical liberal.  And so incomprehensable to the modern American liberal.



I understand what you want. But I am SURE you don't understand how to get there REALISTICALLY. Liberals and progressives have always been dead set against crony capitalism. And the only way to prevent that is through government regulations. Our founding fathers clearly understood that and practiced it.

If they were alive today you would call them the same names you call me.

What caused the Progressive movement

We tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.

It was opposition to that same Gilded Age that was the genesis of the Progressive movement in this country. When you study history, almost always just cause is behind it.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
Me


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said Bfgn, as a liberal there is something in your DNA or the water you drink or something that makes you incapable of discussing a concept.  If all people were held to the same standards of liberty, and the government didn't pick winners or losers, the only regulation we would need is to prevent us, in any form, from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other with impunity.  And if the federal government was prevented, as it once was, from taking money and/or privilege from one citizen and providing it for the benefit of another, corporate donations wouldn't matter would they because nobody could benefit themselves without benefitting everybody else.
> 
> The concept of liberty is so simple for the modern American conservative, aka classical liberal.  And so incomprehensable to the modern American liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you want. But I am SURE you don't understand how to get there REALISTICALLY. Liberals and progressives have always been dead set against crony capitalism. And the only way to prevent that is through government regulations. Our founding fathers clearly understood that and practiced it.
> 
> If they were alive today you would call them the same names you call me.
> 
> What caused the Progressive movement
> 
> We tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.
> 
> It was opposition to that same Gilded Age that was the genesis of the Progressive movement in this country. When you study history, almost always just cause is behind it.
> 
> The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
> Me
Click to expand...


If liberals are so opposed to crony capitalism, then why haven't they stopped it when they had the votes to do it?  Why has $48 billion, that billion with a B, been poured into failing energy companies the last few years, all of which were big donors to Barack Obama's campaigns?   

You refrenced Enron.  Do you know which Administration was most instrumental in doling out millions in corporate welfare and manipulating regulation to benefit Enron?  (Hint:   it wasn't Bush 41 or Bush 43 despite the leftwing media's attempt to put the blame there.)  But this link provides a pretty good history:
Enron: Courting Clinton and the Environmentalists | CNS News.

Enemies of the Constitution are those who wish to interpret it for their own pesonal goals and that would be mostly the liberal mindset.  True champions of liberty value the words of the dead who gave the Constitution and its intent life.  True American conservatives understand that.  The modern American liberals do not.

I'm still waiting for a paragraph describing your definition of what liberalism is that does not reference or blame or accuse or trash any person, political party, group, or entity.  Don't tell me what somebody else is or what somebody else has done or believes  or what liberalism is not.  Tell me what liberalism is to you.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said Bfgn, as a liberal there is something in your DNA or the water you drink or something that makes you incapable of discussing a concept.  If all people were held to the same standards of liberty, and the government didn't pick winners or losers, the only regulation we would need is to prevent us, in any form, from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other with impunity.  And if the federal government was prevented, as it once was, from taking money and/or privilege from one citizen and providing it for the benefit of another, corporate donations wouldn't matter would they because nobody could benefit themselves without benefitting everybody else.
> 
> The concept of liberty is so simple for the modern American conservative, aka classical liberal.  And so incomprehensable to the modern American liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you want. But I am SURE you don't understand how to get there REALISTICALLY. Liberals and progressives have always been dead set against crony capitalism. And the only way to prevent that is through government regulations. Our founding fathers clearly understood that and practiced it.
> 
> If they were alive today you would call them the same names you call me.
> 
> What caused the Progressive movement
> 
> We tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.
> 
> It was opposition to that same Gilded Age that was the genesis of the Progressive movement in this country. When you study history, almost always just cause is behind it.
> 
> The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
> Me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If liberals are so opposed to crony capitalism, then why haven't they stopped it when they had the votes to do it?  Why has $48 billion, that billion with a B, been poured into failing energy companies the last few years, all of which were big donors to Barack Obama's campaigns?
> 
> You refrenced Enron.  Do you know which Administration was most instrumental in doling out millions in corporate welfare and manipulating regulation to benefit Enron?  (Hint:   it wasn't Bush 41 or Bush 43 despite the leftwing media's attempt to put the blame there.)  But this link provides a pretty good history:
> Enron: Courting Clinton and the Environmentalists | CNS News.
> 
> Enemies of the Constitution are those who wish to interpret it for their own pesonal goals and that would be mostly the liberal mindset.  True champions of liberty value the words of the dead who gave the Constitution and its intent life.  True American conservatives understand that.  The modern American liberals do not.
> 
> I'm still waiting for a paragraph describing your definition of what liberalism is that does not reference or blame or accuse or trash any person, political party, group, or entity.  Don't tell me what somebody else is or what somebody else has done or believes  or what liberalism is not.  Tell me what liberalism is to you.
Click to expand...


They did try to stop it with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. And conservatives have fought tooth and nail to stop it, castrate it or water it down.

Conservatives are ALL ABOUT crony capitalism. It IS deeply embedded in their DNA. Conservatives ALWAYS protect the big guy over the little guy. IT is the whole philosophy of Reaganomics.

It has ALWAYS been what conservatives do and always WILL do. You can whine and say whatever you wish. There is NO liberal DNA in conservatives, you are just too ashamed of how conservatives have destroyed our country. You need to own up.

I rarely have an urge to defend Bill Clinton. IMO he would be an acceptable President as a Republican, not as a Democrat. Same goes for Obama. The last liberal President was my favorite, John F. Kennedy. And the Kennedy family to me is the epitome of liberalism. The Kennedys have never been 'For Sale' That is probably why Jack and Bobby were assassinated. Jack, Bobby, Ted, Eunice and her husband Sarge, Joe Jr, RFK Jr, Maria Shriver, and the rest of the clan have dedicated their public lives to helping little people.

Here is one of my favorite quotes from JFK. It defines who and what a President, and a government should and MUST be. 


"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

I could paraphrase JFK, but he says it more eloquently than I could.

This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you want. But I am SURE you don't understand how to get there REALISTICALLY. Liberals and progressives have always been dead set against crony capitalism. And the only way to prevent that is through government regulations. Our founding fathers clearly understood that and practiced it.
> 
> If they were alive today you would call them the same names you call me.
> 
> What caused the Progressive movement
> 
> We tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.
> 
> It was opposition to that same Gilded Age that was the genesis of the Progressive movement in this country. When you study history, almost always just cause is behind it.
> 
> The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
> Me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If liberals are so opposed to crony capitalism, then why haven't they stopped it when they had the votes to do it?  Why has $48 billion, that billion with a B, been poured into failing energy companies the last few years, all of which were big donors to Barack Obama's campaigns?
> 
> You refrenced Enron.  Do you know which Administration was most instrumental in doling out millions in corporate welfare and manipulating regulation to benefit Enron?  (Hint:   it wasn't Bush 41 or Bush 43 despite the leftwing media's attempt to put the blame there.)  But this link provides a pretty good history:
> Enron: Courting Clinton and the Environmentalists | CNS News.
> 
> Enemies of the Constitution are those who wish to interpret it for their own pesonal goals and that would be mostly the liberal mindset.  True champions of liberty value the words of the dead who gave the Constitution and its intent life.  True American conservatives understand that.  The modern American liberals do not.
> 
> I'm still waiting for a paragraph describing your definition of what liberalism is that does not reference or blame or accuse or trash any person, political party, group, or entity.  Don't tell me what somebody else is or what somebody else has done or believes  or what liberalism is not.  Tell me what liberalism is to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did try to stop it with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. And conservatives have fought tooth and nail to stop it, castrate it or water it down.
> 
> Conservatives are ALL ABOUT crony capitalism. It IS deeply embedded in their DNA. Conservatives ALWAYS protect the big guy over the little guy. IT is the whole philosophy of Reaganomics.
> 
> It has ALWAYS been what conservatives do and always WILL do. You can whine and say whatever you wish. There is NO liberal DNA in conservatives, you are just too ashamed of how conservatives have destroyed our country. You need to own up.
> 
> I rarely have an urge to defend Bill Clinton. IMO he would be an acceptable President as a Republican, not as a Democrat. Same goes for Obama. The last liberal President was my favorite, John F. Kennedy. And the Kennedy family to me is the epitome of liberalism. The Kennedys have never been 'For Sale' That is probably why Jack and Bobby were assassinated. Jack, Bobby, Ted, Eunice and her husband Sarge, Joe Jr, RFK Jr, Maria Shriver, and the rest of the clan have dedicated their public lives to helping little people.
> 
> Here is one of my favorite quotes from JFK. It defines who and what a President, and a government should and MUST be.
> 
> 
> "Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> I could paraphrase JFK, but he says it more eloquently than I could.
> 
> This is my political credo:
> 
> I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.
Click to expand...


JFK was full of s*** and half of the things he said had nothing to do with what he did


----------



## Foxfyre

JFK's words from Bfgn's post:


> I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.



Sorry Bfgn, but JFK said absolutely nothing in that quote other than a lot of warm fuzzy feeling words.  What does that mean?  What does a liberal see as the role of government?  What is liberty?  What is dignity?  What is compassion?  What is the national purpose in real terms?

I'll give you my short definition of modern American conservatism aka Classical Liberalism one more time:

*Modern American conservatism or classical liberalism is the concept that the role of the federal government is to secure our unalienable rights and enact just enough laws to allow the various states to function as one nation without doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other.  The federal government will then leave the people alone to live their lives as they choose and form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have which is the definition of freedom.   Unalienable rights are those that require no contribution or participation by any other and they are enumerated as including but not limited to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.   Such human goals as liberty, dignity, compassion, purpose et al are for the people to work out themselves and not for any monarch, pope, dictator, or other central authority to dictate.*

Now then, can you write something similar and specific for the liberal definition?   Note that I referenced no person, political party, entity, or any past history or activities.   If so, you would be the very first among your liberal brethren that demonstrated a capability to do that.


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If liberals are so opposed to crony capitalism, then why haven't they stopped it when they had the votes to do it?  Why has $48 billion, that billion with a B, been poured into failing energy companies the last few years, all of which were big donors to Barack Obama's campaigns?
> 
> You refrenced Enron.  Do you know which Administration was most instrumental in doling out millions in corporate welfare and manipulating regulation to benefit Enron?  (Hint:   it wasn't Bush 41 or Bush 43 despite the leftwing media's attempt to put the blame there.)  But this link provides a pretty good history:
> Enron: Courting Clinton and the Environmentalists | CNS News.
> 
> Enemies of the Constitution are those who wish to interpret it for their own pesonal goals and that would be mostly the liberal mindset.  True champions of liberty value the words of the dead who gave the Constitution and its intent life.  True American conservatives understand that.  The modern American liberals do not.
> 
> I'm still waiting for a paragraph describing your definition of what liberalism is that does not reference or blame or accuse or trash any person, political party, group, or entity.  Don't tell me what somebody else is or what somebody else has done or believes  or what liberalism is not.  Tell me what liberalism is to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did try to stop it with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. And conservatives have fought tooth and nail to stop it, castrate it or water it down.
> 
> Conservatives are ALL ABOUT crony capitalism. It IS deeply embedded in their DNA. Conservatives ALWAYS protect the big guy over the little guy. IT is the whole philosophy of Reaganomics.
> 
> It has ALWAYS been what conservatives do and always WILL do. You can whine and say whatever you wish. There is NO liberal DNA in conservatives, you are just too ashamed of how conservatives have destroyed our country. You need to own up.
> 
> I rarely have an urge to defend Bill Clinton. IMO he would be an acceptable President as a Republican, not as a Democrat. Same goes for Obama. The last liberal President was my favorite, John F. Kennedy. And the Kennedy family to me is the epitome of liberalism. The Kennedys have never been 'For Sale' That is probably why Jack and Bobby were assassinated. Jack, Bobby, Ted, Eunice and her husband Sarge, Joe Jr, RFK Jr, Maria Shriver, and the rest of the clan have dedicated their public lives to helping little people.
> 
> Here is one of my favorite quotes from JFK. It defines who and what a President, and a government should and MUST be.
> 
> 
> "Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> I could paraphrase JFK, but he says it more eloquently than I could.
> 
> This is my political credo:
> 
> I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JFK was full of s*** and half of the things he said had nothing to do with what he did
Click to expand...


Really?

Can you name another President that would say this?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWNhWANkq0Q]President Kennedy calls out the steel companies (1962) - YouTube[/ame]

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie  deliberate, contrived and dishonest  but the myth  persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## dblack

Bfgrn said:


> Liberals and progressives have always been dead set against crony capitalism. And the only way to prevent that is through government regulations.



Agreed. But such regulations must reside at a higher, ie Constitutional, level. Anything subject to modification through votes, and thus subject to vote-buying, will be rapidly corrupted. We need (or already have depending on your reading) Constitutional restrictions on government's ability to pass crony laws.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals and progressives have always been dead set against crony capitalism. And the only way to prevent that is through government regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. But such regulations must reside at a higher, ie Constitutional, level. Anything subject to modification through votes, and thus subject to vote-buying, will be rapidly corrupted. We need (or already have depending on your reading) Constitutional restrictions on government's ability to pass crony laws.
Click to expand...


Prior to Teddy Roosevelt, even though they slipped up now and then on a very limited basis, all U.S. presidents and U.S. congresses saw no constitutional provision that would allow the federal government to use the people's money to benefit anybody.  It was not the prerogative of the U.S. government to dispense charity, to pick winners or losers, or otherwise engage in crony capitalism or use the people's money in any other capacity to 'buy votes'.

In other words, the federal government was restricted from doing or mandating anything that the Constitution did not specifically allow it to do.  Everything else was for the states and local communities to do.

Teddy Roosevelt turned that on its head when he pronounced that the federal government could do anything that the Constitution did not specifically PROHIBIT.   And that opened the barn doors wide and they have never been closed since.

He started a tiny snowball rolling that was given a huge push in the FDR administration and it has been gathering size and momentum ever since until now it threatens to crush us all.

The ONLY remedy is a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the federal government at ANY level from using the people's money to benefit any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all and that prohibits the federal government from passing any legislation that benefits any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all.   If we would do that, there would be no more crony capitalism, no more entitlement mentality at the federal level, and we will wipe out 95% of the all the graft and corruption in government and among the recipients of government largesse.

That is the conservative remedy.

I'm sure the liberals will be absolutely horrified to even think of such a thing.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals and progressives have always been dead set against crony capitalism. And the only way to prevent that is through government regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. But such regulations must reside at a higher, ie Constitutional, level. Anything subject to modification through votes, and thus subject to vote-buying, will be rapidly corrupted. We need (or already have depending on your reading) Constitutional restrictions on government's ability to pass crony laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prior to Teddy Roosevelt, even though they slipped up now and then on a very limited basis, all U.S. presidents and U.S. congresses saw no constitutional provision that would allow the federal government to use the people's money to benefit anybody.  It was not the prerogative of the U.S. government to dispense charity, to pick winners or losers, or otherwise engage in crony capitalism or use the people's money in any other capacity to 'buy votes'.
> 
> In other words, the federal government was restricted from doing or mandating anything that the Constitution did not specifically allow it to do.  Everything else was for the states and local communities to do.
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt turned that on its head when he pronounced that the federal government could do anything that the Constitution did not specifically PROHIBIT.   And that opened the barn doors wide and they have never been closed since.
> 
> He started a tiny snowball rolling that was given a huge push in the FDR administration and it has been gathering size and momentum ever since until now it threatens to crush us all.
> 
> The ONLY remedy is a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the federal government at ANY level from using the people's money to benefit any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all and that prohibits the federal government from passing any legislation that benefits any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all.   If we would do that, there would be no more crony capitalism, no more entitlement mentality at the federal level, and we will wipe out 95% of the all the graft and corruption in government and among the recipients of government largesse.
> 
> That is the conservative remedy.
> 
> I'm sure the liberals will be absolutely horrified to even think of such a thing.
Click to expand...


So your remedy is to return to the Gilded Age and the Robber Barons, where a worker was cheaper to replace than protect. A worker's life meant less than squeezing every penny out of workers. I would hope EVERYONE would be absolutely horrified to even think of such a thing.

The Gilded Age was a period of horrific labor violence, as industralists and workers literaly fought over control of the work place. What were working conditions like? Factory work was very difficult, and many injuries and deaths occurred.

It was hard to blame or hold factory owners responsible because there were no safety rules or regulations. Saw dust and toxic fumes were in the air and breathed in by the workers. Some factories had fatalities daily due to poor working conditions. 

Child labor was very common and nearly 1/3 of school age children worked full time jobs. In the gilded age, workers worked 60 hours a week for a salary of 10 cents an hour. Courts were not sympathetic to work claims, so hardly any injured people or deaths recovered on claims.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals and progressives have always been dead set against crony capitalism. And the only way to prevent that is through government regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. But such regulations must reside at a higher, ie Constitutional, level. Anything subject to modification through votes, and thus subject to vote-buying, will be rapidly corrupted. We need (or already have depending on your reading) Constitutional restrictions on government's ability to pass crony laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prior to Teddy Roosevelt, even though they slipped up now and then on a very limited basis, all U.S. presidents and U.S. congresses saw no constitutional provision that would allow the federal government to use the people's money to benefit anybody.  It was not the prerogative of the U.S. government to dispense charity, to pick winners or losers, or otherwise engage in crony capitalism or use the people's money in any other capacity to 'buy votes'.
> 
> *In other words, the federal government was restricted from doing or mandating anything that the Constitution did not specifically allow it to do.  Everything else was for the states and local communities to do.*
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt turned that on its head when he pronounced that the federal government could do anything that the Constitution did not specifically PROHIBIT.   And that opened the barn doors wide and they have never been closed since.
> 
> He started a tiny snowball rolling that was given a huge push in the FDR administration and it has been gathering size and momentum ever since until now it threatens to crush us all.
> 
> The ONLY remedy is a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the federal government at ANY level from using the people's money to benefit any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all and that prohibits the federal government from passing any legislation that benefits any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all.   If we would do that, there would be no more crony capitalism, no more entitlement mentality at the federal level, and we will wipe out 95% of the all the graft and corruption in government and among the recipients of government largesse.
> 
> That is the conservative remedy.
> 
> I'm sure the liberals will be absolutely horrified to even think of such a thing.
Click to expand...


Incorrect. 

Since the Foundation Era it was the original intent of the Framers that the Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied. See: _McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). _

Moreover, the Federal government is the creation of all the people, representing all the people, and by the consent of the people exercises its authority over all the people and the states: 



> *It does not at all followthat the sole political identity of an American is with the State of his or her residence. *It denies the dual character of the Federal Government which is its very foundation to assert that the people of the United States do not have a political identity as well, one independent of, though consistent with, their identity as citizens of the State of their residence.
> 
> The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition, which I take to be beyond dispute, that, though limited as to its objects, *the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States.* _McCulloch _affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States." Id., at 432. *The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere.*
> 
> U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

numan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives.  That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.
> 
> Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana.  Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.
> 
> 
> 
> I know not a single American conservative who has EVER said that the free market needs no regulation at all.  However, the Founders intended the Federal Government to secure our rights and enact sufficient laws to prevent us from doing environmental, economic, or physical violence with impunity to each other, but then the Federal Government would leave us alone to live our lives as we chose to do, form whatever sort of societies we wished to have, and the free market would generate unprecedented prosperity and opportunity.
> 
> And it worked like a charm until the government started meddling.  And now we have a goverment that assumes authority over almost all of our lives--religious, social, economic, and in every other way-- and we have precious little liberty left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think anyone who imagines that, in the 21st century, freedom for the individual can be attained with 18th century ideas and procedures should be considered certifiably insane.
> 
> If the words "freedom" and "liberty" are to be anything more than patriotic blither, the archaic, sclerotic US Constitution should be thrown in the wastebasket, and we should do the hard work of framing a system of government that would work in the modern world.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Actually our current system of government is perfectly suited for the 21st Century, provided fearful reactionaries dont attempt to undermine it. 

And yes, it is madness to advocate returning to Pre-_Lochner_ jurisprudence, not that its even possible to begin with.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did try to stop it with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. And conservatives have fought tooth and nail to stop it, castrate it or water it down.
> 
> Conservatives are ALL ABOUT crony capitalism. It IS deeply embedded in their DNA. Conservatives ALWAYS protect the big guy over the little guy. IT is the whole philosophy of Reaganomics.
> 
> It has ALWAYS been what conservatives do and always WILL do. You can whine and say whatever you wish. There is NO liberal DNA in conservatives, you are just too ashamed of how conservatives have destroyed our country. You need to own up.
> 
> I rarely have an urge to defend Bill Clinton. IMO he would be an acceptable President as a Republican, not as a Democrat. Same goes for Obama. The last liberal President was my favorite, John F. Kennedy. And the Kennedy family to me is the epitome of liberalism. The Kennedys have never been 'For Sale' That is probably why Jack and Bobby were assassinated. Jack, Bobby, Ted, Eunice and her husband Sarge, Joe Jr, RFK Jr, Maria Shriver, and the rest of the clan have dedicated their public lives to helping little people.
> 
> Here is one of my favorite quotes from JFK. It defines who and what a President, and a government should and MUST be.
> 
> 
> "Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> I could paraphrase JFK, but he says it more eloquently than I could.
> 
> This is my political credo:
> 
> I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFK was full of s*** and half of the things he said had nothing to do with what he did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Can you name another President that would say this?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWNhWANkq0Q]President Kennedy calls out the steel companies (1962) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie  deliberate, contrived and dishonest  but the myth  persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
> President John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...


JFK as a senator who was voted down Civil Rights was nothing more than the 1960's George W Bush


----------



## CandySlice

Mr. H. said:


> I never really "hated" Liberals until I signed up here. I feel that now I understand them more than over before. And to understand a Liberal is... to hate a Liberal.





Okay, I have had the same experience. What better way to learn to dislike someone than to read some of the swill I've read here coming from the mouths of liberals. Are they all such hateful people?? I don't really see republicans stooping to that level, at least not as often. Sorry libs, I call 'em like I see 'em.


----------



## Dragonlady

CandySlice said:


> Okay, I have had the same experience. What better way to learn to dislike someone than to read some of the swill I've read here coming from the mouths of liberals. Are they all such hateful people?? *I don't really see republicans stooping to that level, at least not as often. *Sorry libs, I call 'em like I see 'em.



Emphasis mine.  The most unintentionally funny post I've read on this board.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, another diference between the neo-cons and the liberals is that the neo-cons have a much better grasp on how the free market works and the virtues of allowing it to work.   Likewise social conservatives look to the federal government to enforce the morality they see as important, and that also removes them from the modern American conservative aka classical liberal category.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives.  That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.
> 
> Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana.  Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.
Click to expand...


Right that is why when you look at the economies of red states and free market nations in Europe, like Poland, their economies are so much worse than New York, the UK, France, and Spain.

/s


----------



## JimBowie1958

Dragonlady said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I have had the same experience. What better way to learn to dislike someone than to read some of the swill I've read here coming from the mouths of liberals. Are they all such hateful people?? *I don't really see republicans stooping to that level, at least not as often. *Sorry libs, I call 'em like I see 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis mine.  The most unintentionally funny post I've read on this board.
Click to expand...


Speaking as someone who is not conservative (but only in contrast to the wacko-left of today does anyone think me conservative) the liberals of yesterday are far more tolerant than any conservative, but perhaps too tolerant.

The 'Liberals' of our time are mostly fascists who attack anyone that disagrees with them. I cant count how many times I have seen libtards post on other sites that they hate people that disagree with them, and the anger that so many of them have toward Christians is an example.

Libtards are  not liberals, really, they are thugs who want to beat the world into submission to their ideology.


----------



## JimBowie1958

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK was full of s*** and half of the things he said had nothing to do with what he did
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Can you name another President that would say this?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWNhWANkq0Q]President Kennedy calls out the steel companies (1962) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie  deliberate, contrived and dishonest  but the myth  persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JFK as a senator who was voted down Civil Rights was nothing more than the 1960's George W Bush
Click to expand...


Similar, yes, but both were better than Bush the Elder, and nether were conservative.


----------



## Bfgrn

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, another diference between the neo-cons and the liberals is that the neo-cons have a much better grasp on how the free market works and the virtues of allowing it to work.   Likewise social conservatives look to the federal government to enforce the morality they see as important, and that also removes them from the modern American conservative aka classical liberal category.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives.  That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.
> 
> Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana.  Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right that is why when you look at the economies of red states and free market nations in Europe, like Poland, their economies are so much worse than New York, the UK, France, and Spain.
> 
> /s
Click to expand...


Do you have anything to back that up other than an emotional outburst?

Red States Are Welfare Queens

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States  the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut  are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

    New Mexico: $2.03
    Mississippi: $2.02
    Alaska: $1.84
    Louisiana: $1.78
    West Virginia: $1.76
    North Dakota: $1.68
    Alabama: $1.66
    South Dakota: $1.53
    Kentucky: $1.51
    Virginia: $1.51
    Montana: $1.47
    Hawaii: $1.44
    Maine: $1.41
    Arkansas: $1.41
    Oklahoma: $1.36
    South Carolina: $1.35
    Missouri: $1.32
    Maryland: $1.30
    Tennessee: $1.27
    Idaho: $1.21

Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.

Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider


----------



## dblack

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. But such regulations must reside at a higher, ie Constitutional, level. Anything subject to modification through votes, and thus subject to vote-buying, will be rapidly corrupted. We need (or already have depending on your reading) Constitutional restrictions on government's ability to pass crony laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prior to Teddy Roosevelt, even though they slipped up now and then on a very limited basis, all U.S. presidents and U.S. congresses saw no constitutional provision that would allow the federal government to use the people's money to benefit anybody.  It was not the prerogative of the U.S. government to dispense charity, to pick winners or losers, or otherwise engage in crony capitalism or use the people's money in any other capacity to 'buy votes'.
> 
> In other words, the federal government was restricted from doing or mandating anything that the Constitution did not specifically allow it to do.  Everything else was for the states and local communities to do.
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt turned that on its head when he pronounced that the federal government could do anything that the Constitution did not specifically PROHIBIT.   And that opened the barn doors wide and they have never been closed since.
> 
> He started a tiny snowball rolling that was given a huge push in the FDR administration and it has been gathering size and momentum ever since until now it threatens to crush us all.
> 
> The ONLY remedy is a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the federal government at ANY level from using the people's money to benefit any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all and that prohibits the federal government from passing any legislation that benefits any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all.   If we would do that, there would be no more crony capitalism, no more entitlement mentality at the federal level, and we will wipe out 95% of the all the graft and corruption in government and among the recipients of government largesse.
> 
> That is the conservative remedy.
> 
> I'm sure the liberals will be absolutely horrified to even think of such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your remedy is to return to the Gilded Age and the Robber Barons, where a worker was cheaper to replace than protect. A worker's life meant less than squeezing every penny out of workers. I would hope EVERYONE would be absolutely horrified to even think of such a thing.
Click to expand...


I'd hope otherwise. Fear is a horrible motivation for policy and leads to the worst sorts of government. Instead, I'd hope people would recognize these sorts of strawmen for what they are (you forgot Somalia!!!) and think about the issues with the courage to face them honestly. The goal isn't to 'return' to anything, but to correct our mistakes. And to ensure we don't repeat them. 

What about the actual issue I raised? Crony capitalism is implemented via regulation, so it's hard to see how more of the same is going to solve the problem. "Hair of the dog" might make sense to a drunk as a cure for a hangover, but sober folks recognize it as merely prolonging the problem.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bfgrn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives.  That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.
> 
> Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana.  Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right that is why when you look at the economies of red states and free market nations in Europe, like Poland, their economies are so much worse than New York, the UK, France, and Spain.
> 
> /s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have anything to back that up other than an emotional outburst?
> 
> Red States Are Welfare Queens
> 
> As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States &#8212; the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut &#8212; are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.
> 
> Take a look at the difference between *federal spending on any given state *and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.
> 
> Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.
> 
> New Mexico: $2.03
> Mississippi: $2.02
> Alaska: $1.84
> Louisiana: $1.78
> West Virginia: $1.76
> North Dakota: $1.68
> Alabama: $1.66
> South Dakota: $1.53
> Kentucky: $1.51
> Virginia: $1.51
> Montana: $1.47
> Hawaii: $1.44
> Maine: $1.41
> Arkansas: $1.41
> Oklahoma: $1.36
> South Carolina: $1.35
> Missouri: $1.32
> Maryland: $1.30
> Tennessee: $1.27
> Idaho: $1.21
> 
> Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.
> 
> Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.
> 
> Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider
Click to expand...


That is complete bullshit because the libtards that did the stats count as "federal spending" defense spending, federally funded research, and unearned tax credits, etc as federal receipts, and that is NOT WELFARE, dumbass.


----------



## Dragonlady

JimBowie1958 said:


> That is complete bullshit because the libtards that did the stats count as "federal spending" defense spending, federally funded research, and unearned tax credits, etc as federal receipts, and that is NOT WELFARE, dumbass.



Well defense spending is bloated, much of it simply pork barrelling, and federally funded research money is absolutely subject to cronyism and pork barrelling, so yes, it is appropriate to include those items in those figures.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prior to Teddy Roosevelt, even though they slipped up now and then on a very limited basis, all U.S. presidents and U.S. congresses saw no constitutional provision that would allow the federal government to use the people's money to benefit anybody.  It was not the prerogative of the U.S. government to dispense charity, to pick winners or losers, or otherwise engage in crony capitalism or use the people's money in any other capacity to 'buy votes'.
> 
> In other words, the federal government was restricted from doing or mandating anything that the Constitution did not specifically allow it to do.  Everything else was for the states and local communities to do.
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt turned that on its head when he pronounced that the federal government could do anything that the Constitution did not specifically PROHIBIT.   And that opened the barn doors wide and they have never been closed since.
> 
> He started a tiny snowball rolling that was given a huge push in the FDR administration and it has been gathering size and momentum ever since until now it threatens to crush us all.
> 
> The ONLY remedy is a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the federal government at ANY level from using the people's money to benefit any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all and that prohibits the federal government from passing any legislation that benefits any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all.   If we would do that, there would be no more crony capitalism, no more entitlement mentality at the federal level, and we will wipe out 95% of the all the graft and corruption in government and among the recipients of government largesse.
> 
> That is the conservative remedy.
> 
> I'm sure the liberals will be absolutely horrified to even think of such a thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your remedy is to return to the Gilded Age and the Robber Barons, where a worker was cheaper to replace than protect. A worker's life meant less than squeezing every penny out of workers. I would hope EVERYONE would be absolutely horrified to even think of such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd hope otherwise. Fear is a horrible motivation for policy and leads to the worst sorts of government. Instead, I'd hope people would recognize these sorts of strawmen for what they are (you forgot Somalia!!!) and think about the issues with the courage to face them honestly. The goal isn't to 'return' to anything, but to correct our mistakes. And to ensure we don't repeat them.
> 
> What about the actual issue I raised? Crony capitalism is implemented via regulation, so it's hard to see how more of the same is going to solve the problem. "Hair of the dog" might make sense to a drunk as a cure for a hangover, but sober folks recognize it as merely prolonging the problem.
Click to expand...


According to the Office of the Federal Register, in 1998, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the official listing of all regulations in effect, contained a total of 134,723 pages in 201 volumes that claimed 19 feet of shelf space. In 1970, the CFR totaled only 54,834 pages.

That figure has probably tripled by now with 33,000 pages added for Obamacare alone with dozens more being added with each passing day.  And yet the more regulation they write, the more of a mess things are in.

Bfgn continues to point to the sins of society and and refuses to write a coherant description for modern American liberalism--but in fairness to him he can't as almost all liberals stake their entire philosophy of life on a belief that the answers are in punishing or stopping the other guy.  And most liberals are unable to acknowledge or recognize that most of our societal problems and most messes we are in are a response to or a result of federal meddling and overreach even as he looks to the federal government as the solution for it.


----------



## CandySlice

Dragonlady said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I have had the same experience. What better way to learn to dislike someone than to read some of the swill I've read here coming from the mouths of liberals. Are they all such hateful people?? *I don't really see republicans stooping to that level, at least not as often. *Sorry libs, I call 'em like I see 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis mine.  The most unintentionally funny post I've read on this board.
Click to expand...


Every political party has it's share of nut balls but you can't beat a liberal in the practice of intentionally suspending commom sense. Like it or lump it. your choice.


----------



## CandySlice

Bfgrn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives.  That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.
> 
> Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana.  Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right that is why when you look at the economies of red states and free market nations in Europe, like Poland, their economies are so much worse than New York, the UK, France, and Spain.
> 
> /s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have anything to back that up other than an emotional outburst?
> 
> Red States Are Welfare Queens
> 
> As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States  the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut  are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.
> 
> Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.
> 
> Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.
> 
> New Mexico: $2.03
> Mississippi: $2.02
> Alaska: $1.84
> Louisiana: $1.78
> West Virginia: $1.76
> North Dakota: $1.68
> Alabama: $1.66
> South Dakota: $1.53
> Kentucky: $1.51
> Virginia: $1.51
> Montana: $1.47
> Hawaii: $1.44
> Maine: $1.41
> Arkansas: $1.41
> Oklahoma: $1.36
> South Carolina: $1.35
> Missouri: $1.32
> Maryland: $1.30
> Tennessee: $1.27
> Idaho: $1.21
> 
> Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.
> 
> Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.
> 
> Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider
Click to expand...


Whooo-hoo. Way to spin statistics. This is a specious piece of liberal clap trap and I rest my case. You people have no shame in addition to having no sense.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Dragonlady said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is complete bullshit because the libtards that did the stats count as "federal spending" defense spending, federally funded research, and unearned tax credits, etc as federal receipts, and that is NOT WELFARE, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well defense spending is bloated, much of it simply pork barrelling, and federally funded research money is absolutely subject to cronyism and pork barrelling, so yes, it is appropriate to include those items in those figures.
Click to expand...


No its not. Welfare programs are a specific set of programs and they do not count as welfare just because you libs like to stack the deck.

You libs are pretty funny when you aren't just being asinine.


----------



## numan

Bfgrn said:


> They did try to stop it with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. And conservatives have fought tooth and nail to stop it, castrate it or water it down.
> 
> Conservatives are ALL ABOUT crony capitalism. It IS deeply embedded in their DNA.


Crony capitalism, and even worse vices, are embedded in the DNA of *Neo-Cons*.

However, there once was a conservative philosophy that was worth something : to progress while saving the best of the past.

That is reprehensible to the Neo-Con Thugs now running US politics.
.


----------



## numan

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think anyone who imagines that, in the 21st century, freedom for the individual can be attained with 18th century ideas and procedures should be considered certifiably insane.
> 
> If the words "freedom" and "liberty" are to be anything more than patriotic blither, the archaic, sclerotic US Constitution should be thrown in the wastebasket, and we should do the hard work of framing a system of government that would work in the modern world.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually our current system of government is perfectly suited for the 21st Century....
Click to expand...

Would you care to provide some evidence for this, on the face of it, absurd assertion you have made?

.


----------



## Foxfyre

A principle based on truth does not change whether it applies in the 18th, 19th, 20th, or 21st centuries.

If unalienable God given rights existed in the 18th Century, it is absurd to think that they do not exist in the 21st century.

If infringement of unalienable rights were detrimental to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the 18th Century, it is absurd to think that the same would not be the case in the 21st Century.

If the free market produced prosperity in the 18th Century, it is absurd to think that the free market will not produce prosperity in the 21st Century.

If self governance by the people free of a king, monarch, pope, dictator, or any other combination or form of authoritarian government produced freedom, prosperity, innovation, benevolence, and progress in the 18th Century, there is no reason to believe it would not produce the same in the 21st century.

Which is another reason to despise liberalism that presumes to assign us the rights we will have, that presumes to order the market according to some authorities design rather than let it work laizzez faire, that does not consider it infringement on rights to require one citizen to serve another, and that does not trust the people to govern themselves.


----------



## CandySlice

Dragonlady said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I have had the same experience. What better way to learn to dislike someone than to read some of the swill I've read here coming from the mouths of liberals. Are they all such hateful people?? *I don't really see republicans stooping to that level, at least not as often. *Sorry libs, I call 'em like I see 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis mine.  The most unintentionally funny post I've read on this board.
Click to expand...


Poor thing. How do you get along without a sense of humor?


----------



## CandySlice

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I have had the same experience. What better way to learn to dislike someone than to read some of the swill I've read here coming from the mouths of liberals. Are they all such hateful people?? *I don't really see republicans stooping to that level, at least not as often. *Sorry libs, I call 'em like I see 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis mine.  The most unintentionally funny post I've read on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking as someone who is not conservative (but only in contrast to the wacko-left of today does anyone think me conservative) the liberals of yesterday are far more tolerant than any conservative, but perhaps too tolerant.
> 
> The 'Liberals' of our time are mostly fascists who attack anyone that disagrees with them. I cant count how many times I have seen libtards post on other sites that they hate people that disagree with them, and the anger that so many of them have toward Christians is an example.
> 
> Libtards are  not liberals, really, they are thugs who want to beat the world into submission to their ideology.
Click to expand...


Agreed these are not what we used to call liberals. These people are just angry, disgruntled and probably envious of anything anyone else wants. Especially freedom. Thugs indeed. Disagree at your peril. Thery'll start a hate campaign on dissenters at the drop of a hat. It gets so predictable after a while.


----------



## numan

Foxfyre said:


> A principle based on truth does not change whether it applies in the 18th, 19th, 20th, or 21st centuries.
> 
> If unalienable God given rights existed in the 18th Century, it is absurd to think that they do not exist in the 21st century.
> 
> If infringement of unalienable rights were detrimental to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the 18th Century, it is absurd to think that the same would not be the case in the 21st Century.


And what does this tossing around of idle abstractions have to do with the Constitution of the United States -- even assuming that they were anything more than blither?

.


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> Crony capitalism,



Crony? You mean like requiring all people to buy the product of well connected corporations and enforcing it with the IRS?



> and even worse vices, are embedded in the DNA of *Neo-Cons*.



We can see that, with Fascist care...



> However, there once was a conservative philosophy that was worth something : to progress while saving the best of the past.
> 
> That is reprehensible to the Neo-Con Thugs now running US politics.
> .



Bush is still in charge...


----------



## Foxfyre

numan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> A principle based on truth does not change whether it applies in the 18th, 19th, 20th, or 21st centuries.
> 
> If unalienable God given rights existed in the 18th Century, it is absurd to think that they do not exist in the 21st century.
> 
> If infringement of unalienable rights were detrimental to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the 18th Century, it is absurd to think that the same would not be the case in the 21st Century.
> 
> 
> 
> And what does this tossing around of idle abstractions have to do with the Constitution of the United States -- even assuming that they were anything more than blither?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


For me they are not idle abstractions.  They are fundamental principles by which we all should measure the policies and regulations that are imposed upon the people.  The Constitution was built upon the foundation of those very principles, and for most of the next 150 years American government tested every proposed law, rule, and solution in the light of the freedoms intended via those guiding principles.

In my opinion, few modern American liberals are capable of articulating, understanding, and/or relating to such guiding principles and scorn those who are.   Heaven help us when even those who are philosophically conservative, aka classical liberal, also become incapable of articulating, understanding, and/or relating to such guiding principles.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> ...
> 
> Which is another reason to despise liberalism that presumes to assign us the rights we will have, that presumes to order the market according to some authorities design rather than let it work laizzez faire, that does not consider it infringement on rights to require one citizen to serve another, and that does not trust the people to govern themselves.



I wish I had seen this thread sooner -- 1500 posts is more than I can digest. 

Suffice to say (just to jump in midstream as a pretext to put the thread on my watch list), this last paragraph has it exactly backwards as far as what Liberalism actually is.  (Btw it's _laissez-faire_, "to let it happen").

Methinks there's a lot of wags confusing Liberalism with Leftism, or in this case with Authoritarianism.  That's quite a stretch.  Perhaps the question is why we want to poison a political term, let alone that it's the very philosophy that birthed this country.



Ah, somebody's prolly already covered this on pages 4395 and 73469...


----------



## dblack

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Which is another reason to despise liberalism that presumes to assign us the rights we will have, that presumes to order the market according to some authorities design rather than let it work laizzez faire, that does not consider it infringement on rights to require one citizen to serve another, and that does not trust the people to govern themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I had seen this thread sooner -- 1500 posts is more than I can digest.
> 
> Suffice to say (just to jump in midstream as a pretext to put the thread on my watch list), this last paragraph has it exactly backwards as far as what Liberalism actually is.  (Btw it's _laissez-faire_, "to let it happen").
> 
> Methinks there's a lot of wags confusing Liberalism with Leftism, or in this case with Authoritarianism.  That's quite a stretch.  Perhaps the question is why we want to poison a political term, let alone that it's the very philosophy that birthed this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, somebody's prolly already covered this on pages 4395 and 73469...
Click to expand...


True and unfortunate. But for most people, 'liberal' means Democrat and 'conservative' means Republican. Neither of these is accurate, so it makes these discussions confusing at best. Are we talking about real 'liberal' values, or the authoritarian/corporatist ideology of the Democrats?


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Which is another reason to despise liberalism that presumes to assign us the rights we will have, that presumes to order the market according to some authorities design rather than let it work laizzez faire, that does not consider it infringement on rights to require one citizen to serve another, and that does not trust the people to govern themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I had seen this thread sooner -- 1500 posts is more than I can digest.
> 
> Suffice to say (just to jump in midstream as a pretext to put the thread on my watch list), this last paragraph has it exactly backwards as far as what Liberalism actually is.  (Btw it's _laissez-faire_, "to let it happen").
> 
> Methinks there's a lot of wags confusing Liberalism with Leftism, or in this case with Authoritarianism.  That's quite a stretch.  Perhaps the question is why we want to poison a political term, let alone that it's the very philosophy that birthed this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, somebody's prolly already covered this on pages 4395 and 73469...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True and unfortunate. But for most people, 'liberal' means Democrat and 'conservative' means Republican. Neither of these is accurate, so it makes these discussions confusing at best. Are we talking about real 'liberal' values, or the authoritarian/corporatist ideology of the Democrats?
Click to expand...


That is why, in my opinion, being able to define the terms is so critical.  Most modern conservatives aka classical liberals can define the terms.  Very few, maybe none, of the modern American liberals can or will even try. 

I have asked, begged, offered, goaded our liberal friends here to provide a coherant definition of modern American liberalism, and so far not one has been able to do so.  They throw out vague terms and fuzzy feel good phrases, but not a single thing that could be a guiding principle for what laws and regulation should apply and what should not.  (Or perhaps they actually can write a description, but would be embarrassed at how it would look written down?)

If the goal is to return to a set of fundamentals of liberty, it is not necessary to trash other groups or individuals or political parties or whatever.  You know what you want to accomplish and the Founders gave us the prnciples to use to do that and to measure every function and action of government against.  Conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians want to return to those principles.  Most liberals ignore them and/or shrug them off as irrelevent or unimportant.

If the goal is to force everybody into a prescribed preconceived mold of what society is supposed to be and demand that everybody toe specific acceptable language, mindset, and fuzzy concepts of collectivism under the authority of an authoritarian central government, then you are describing a liberal.   The American liberal/leftist is the statist, the political class, that demands strict controls on what society must and must not tolerate, and looks to a monarch or other authoritarian government to enforce it.  It is the antithesis of liberty.  And that is why the conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians abhore liberalism.

But I wonder if Pogo can write a reasonably short and coherant definition of the differences he sees between the American left and the American liberal?  I figure if anybody can, he can.


----------



## Pogo

dblack said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Which is another reason to despise liberalism that presumes to assign us the rights we will have, that presumes to order the market according to some authorities design rather than let it work laizzez faire, that does not consider it infringement on rights to require one citizen to serve another, and that does not trust the people to govern themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I had seen this thread sooner -- 1500 posts is more than I can digest.
> 
> Suffice to say (just to jump in midstream as a pretext to put the thread on my watch list), this last paragraph has it exactly backwards as far as what Liberalism actually is.  (Btw it's _laissez-faire_, "to let it happen").
> 
> Methinks there's a lot of wags confusing Liberalism with Leftism, or in this case with Authoritarianism.  That's quite a stretch.  Perhaps the question is why we want to poison a political term, let alone that it's the very philosophy that birthed this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, somebody's prolly already covered this on pages 4395 and 73469...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True and unfortunate. But for most people, 'liberal' means Democrat and 'conservative' means Republican. Neither of these is accurate, so it makes these discussions confusing at best. Are we talking about real 'liberal' values, or the authoritarian/corporatist ideology of the Democrats?
Click to expand...


I'd prefer to keep linguistic terms stable and stop morphing them into their own opposites.  Nothing good can come of that.  Let's recognize that "liberal", "leftist", "conservative" and "rightist" are _four _different things, not two.

But let's be clear: BOTH political parties are corporatist.  Eisenhower warned us about that on his way out the door, and he was absolutely correct.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I had seen this thread sooner -- 1500 posts is more than I can digest.
> 
> Suffice to say (just to jump in midstream as a pretext to put the thread on my watch list), this last paragraph has it exactly backwards as far as what Liberalism actually is.  (Btw it's _laissez-faire_, "to let it happen").
> 
> Methinks there's a lot of wags confusing Liberalism with Leftism, or in this case with Authoritarianism.  That's quite a stretch.  Perhaps the question is why we want to poison a political term, let alone that it's the very philosophy that birthed this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, somebody's prolly already covered this on pages 4395 and 73469...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True and unfortunate. But for most people, 'liberal' means Democrat and 'conservative' means Republican. Neither of these is accurate, so it makes these discussions confusing at best. Are we talking about real 'liberal' values, or the authoritarian/corporatist ideology of the Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to keep linguistic terms stable and stop morphing them into their own opposites.  Nothing good can come of that.  Let's recognize that "liberal", "leftist", "conservative" and "rightist" are _four _different things, not two.
> 
> But let's be clear: BOTH political parties are corporatist.  Eisenhower warned us about that on his way out the door, and he was absolutely correct.
Click to expand...


But unless you understand what is opposite of what, and unless the terms are defined, no coherent debate or even a conversation is possible.

You are correct that political parties are not useful to use as definitions, nor is any individual or group or demographic, nor is pointing to present or past sins.  Even previous historical definitions or dictionaries are not that useful in how Americans understand those terms.

In the simplest terms, 'left' in American vernacular is looking to government for solutions and results and 'right' is looking to the individual for solutions and results.

American liberals/statists/political class look to government to create the sort of society they think they want.

American consevatives/classical liberals/libertarians (small "L") look to the government to secure our unalienable rights and allow the various states to function as one nation and then leave us alone to govern ourselves and form whateve sort of societies we wish to have.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> True and unfortunate. But for most people, 'liberal' means Democrat and 'conservative' means Republican. Neither of these is accurate, so it makes these discussions confusing at best. Are we talking about real 'liberal' values, or the authoritarian/corporatist ideology of the Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to keep linguistic terms stable and stop morphing them into their own opposites.  Nothing good can come of that.  Let's recognize that "liberal", "leftist", "conservative" and "rightist" are _four _different things, not two.
> 
> But let's be clear: BOTH political parties are corporatist.  Eisenhower warned us about that on his way out the door, and he was absolutely correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But unless you understand what is opposite of what, and unless the terms are defined, no coherent debate or even a conversation is possible.
> 
> You are correct that political parties are not useful to use as definitions, nor is any individual or group or demographic, nor is pointing to present or past sins.  Even previous historical definitions or dictionaries are not that useful in how Americans understand those terms.
> 
> In the simplest terms, 'left' in American vernacular is looking to government for solutions and results and 'right' is looking to the individual for solutions and results.
> 
> American liberals/statists/political class look to government to create the sort of society they think they want.
> 
> American consevatives/classical liberals/libertarians (small "L") look to the government to secure our unalienable rights and allow the various states to function as one nation and then leave us alone to govern ourselves and form whateve sort of societies we wish to have.
Click to expand...


Foxy, you've just mixed a lot of disparate political terms in a kind of toxic soup, even plunking direct opposites next to each other.  I think that's a major part of the problem.

Especially this for a start:


> In the simplest terms, 'left' in American vernacular is looking to government for solutions and results and 'right' is looking to the individual for solutions and results.



Myth.  Both the left and right look to government for solutions; it's Liberalism that does not.  Left passes laws on affirmative action; Right passes laws on gay marriage.  Same difference.  The individual's interest is the domain of Liberalism, which is opposed by *both *left and right.  

All I have time for right now....


----------



## CandySlice

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I had seen this thread sooner -- 1500 posts is more than I can digest.
> 
> Suffice to say (just to jump in midstream as a pretext to put the thread on my watch list), this last paragraph has it exactly backwards as far as what Liberalism actually is.  (Btw it's _laissez-faire_, "to let it happen").
> 
> Methinks there's a lot of wags confusing Liberalism with Leftism, or in this case with Authoritarianism.  That's quite a stretch.  Perhaps the question is why we want to poison a political term, let alone that it's the very philosophy that birthed this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, somebody's prolly already covered this on pages 4395 and 73469...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True and unfortunate. But for most people, 'liberal' means Democrat and 'conservative' means Republican. Neither of these is accurate, so it makes these discussions confusing at best. Are we talking about real 'liberal' values, or the authoritarian/corporatist ideology of the Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is why, in my opinion, being able to define the terms is so critical.  Most modern conservatives aka classical liberals can define the terms.  Very few, maybe none, of the modern American liberals can or will even try.
> 
> I have asked, begged, offered, goaded our liberal friends here to provide a coherant definition of modern American liberalism, and so far not one has been able to do so.  They throw out vague terms and fuzzy feel good phrases, but not a single thing that could be a guiding principle for what laws and regulation should apply and what should not.  (Or perhaps they actually can write a description, but would be embarrassed at how it would look written down?)
> If the goal is to return to a set of fundamentals of liberty, it is not necessary to trash other groups or individuals or political parties or whatever.  You know what you want to accomplish and the Founders gave us the prnciples to use to do that and to measure every function and action of government against.  Conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians want to return to those principles.  Most liberals ignore them and/or shrug them off as irrelevent or unimportant.
> 
> If the goal is to force everybody into a prescribed preconceived mold of what society is supposed to be and demand that everybody toe specific acceptable language, mindset, and fuzzy concepts of collectivism under the authority of an authoritarian central government, then you are describing a liberal.   The American liberal/leftist is the statist, the political class, that demands strict controls on what society must and must not tolerate, and looks to a monarch or other authoritarian government to enforce it.  It is the antithesis of liberty.  And that is why the conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians abhore liberalism.
> 
> But I wonder if Pogo can write a reasonably short and coherant definition of the differences he sees between the American left and the American liberal?  I figure if anybody can, he can.
Click to expand...


Foxy, I do hope you aren't holding your breath. Without catch phrases these people would be mute.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to keep linguistic terms stable and stop morphing them into their own opposites.  Nothing good can come of that.  Let's recognize that "liberal", "leftist", "conservative" and "rightist" are _four _different things, not two.
> 
> But let's be clear: BOTH political parties are corporatist.  Eisenhower warned us about that on his way out the door, and he was absolutely correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But unless you understand what is opposite of what, and unless the terms are defined, no coherent debate or even a conversation is possible.
> 
> You are correct that political parties are not useful to use as definitions, nor is any individual or group or demographic, nor is pointing to present or past sins.  Even previous historical definitions or dictionaries are not that useful in how Americans understand those terms.
> 
> In the simplest terms, 'left' in American vernacular is looking to government for solutions and results and 'right' is looking to the individual for solutions and results.
> 
> American liberals/statists/political class look to government to create the sort of society they think they want.
> 
> American consevatives/classical liberals/libertarians (small "L") look to the government to secure our unalienable rights and allow the various states to function as one nation and then leave us alone to govern ourselves and form whateve sort of societies we wish to have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxy, you've just mixed a lot of disparate political terms in a kind of toxic soup, even plunking direct opposites next to each other.  I think that's a major part of the problem.
> 
> Especially this for a start:
> 
> 
> 
> In the simplest terms, 'left' in American vernacular is looking to government for solutions and results and 'right' is looking to the individual for solutions and results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Myth.  Both the left and right look to government for solutions; it's Liberalism that does not.  Left passes laws on affirmative action; Right passes laws on gay marriage.  Same difference.  The individual's interest is the domain of Liberalism, which is opposed by *both *left and right.
> 
> All I have time for right now....
Click to expand...


No dear.  I have dealt in specifics and have refused to combine the concepts into a 'soup' as you suggest.  Those who would pass laws re 'gay marriage' at the federal level are not coming from the 'right' as you suggest.  The American 'right'/conservative/classical liberal/libertarian (little "L") does not look to the federal government to dictate laws and regulation regarding marriage period.  Such was never intended to be a function of the federal government.

Those on the 'right' however do see definitions of marriage and laws and regulations regarding it to be a legitimate function of the state and/or local community who were intended to have power to form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have.   The 'left' is not likely to trust the people themselves to have control of that.

When you have more time, please give me a coherant comprehensive and reasonably simple definition of what you think liberalism is as the modern American liberal understands it to be.   If you do that, you will be a giant of intelligence and integrity among the average liberal posting on this board.


----------



## Pogo

CandySlice said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> True and unfortunate. But for most people, 'liberal' means Democrat and 'conservative' means Republican. Neither of these is accurate, so it makes these discussions confusing at best. Are we talking about real 'liberal' values, or the authoritarian/corporatist ideology of the Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why, in my opinion, being able to define the terms is so critical.  Most modern conservatives aka classical liberals can define the terms.  Very few, maybe none, of the modern American liberals can or will even try.
> 
> I have asked, begged, offered, goaded our liberal friends here to provide a coherant definition of modern American liberalism, and so far not one has been able to do so.  They throw out vague terms and fuzzy feel good phrases, but not a single thing that could be a guiding principle for what laws and regulation should apply and what should not.  (Or perhaps they actually can write a description, but would be embarrassed at how it would look written down?)
> If the goal is to return to a set of fundamentals of liberty, it is not necessary to trash other groups or individuals or political parties or whatever.  You know what you want to accomplish and the Founders gave us the prnciples to use to do that and to measure every function and action of government against.  Conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians want to return to those principles.  Most liberals ignore them and/or shrug them off as irrelevent or unimportant.
> 
> If the goal is to force everybody into a prescribed preconceived mold of what society is supposed to be and demand that everybody toe specific acceptable language, mindset, and fuzzy concepts of collectivism under the authority of an authoritarian central government, then you are describing a liberal.   The American liberal/leftist is the statist, the political class, that demands strict controls on what society must and must not tolerate, and looks to a monarch or other authoritarian government to enforce it.  It is the antithesis of liberty.  And that is why the conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians abhore liberalism.
> 
> But I wonder if Pogo can write a reasonably short and coherant definition of the differences he sees between the American left and the American liberal?  I figure if anybody can, he can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxy, I do hope you aren't holding your breath. Without catch phrases these people would be mute.
Click to expand...


CandySlice, thanks for quoting this - I totally missed it. And Foxy, thanks for the flattering invitation.

I'm still constrained with things to do and this is a topic worthy of time and thought, but allow me to transfer some stuff from another thread, where it's not at all on topic:

{begin paste 1}
I guess first thing, I'm not sure why posters here seem to insist on redefining Liberalism as "classical" Liberalism.  I suspect it's a way of driving a wedge into the word so it can then be demonized.  And that's kinda weird.

When I say "Liberalism founded this country" I refer to the philosophy, new and revolutionary at the time, that sees the common populace as the driver of the vehicle, as opposed to the hierarchical structure of church/state/aristocracy that had held sway before that point in history.  That concept of Liberalism comes under fire from both the left and the right for their own purposes of power-hungriness.

To revert to a previous example: the idea of egalitarianism, the "all men are created equal" plank of the platform and vital artery of our Constitution, is in every sense a Liberal concept.  The idea of Affirmative Action, where the State actually _takes action_ to make that happen --rather than _letting _it happen and refraining from influencing it, that is a Leftist concept.  That's what I mean by the difference between them.  Liberal leaves it to grow by itself; Leftist takes action to make it happen.  So does Right, with its obsession with gay marriage and the like.

As far as I remember the term "Liberal" first began to be demonized in the presidential election of 1988 when it became a staple of the Bush stump speech against Dukakis.  H.W. would use the term as if it were an insult.  It was a deliberate dumbing-down that ignored the entire history of our nation for the sake of a cheap sound bite.  Had Bush and his Lee Atwater guru chosen an honest path they might have instead insisted "Dukakis is no Liberal" as a strategy.  But noooo...

I might have missed some rhetorical dynamic before that time but that's when I noticed it.

And it seems to be (this is a theory) part of some grand scheme to redefine "Liberal" -- the concept we're born on -- as a political "side", deliberately conflated with a concoction of Leftist Authoritarians so that that demonized group can then be Eliminated, which then turns everything over to the Rightist Authoritarians (the fascists), who are the entity driving the dumb-down for that purpose.

That's what it looks like to this observer anyway.

{end paste 1, begin paste 2}

1988 is what I remember because at the time watching the way H.W. spat the term it struck me as quite odd and I thought, "is that going to work"?  Then I remembered the observation of H.L. Mencken and realized that it probably would 

That the left, or more accurately the "Democrats", called themselves liberals is understandable given their legacy of association with the commoner classes; after all when they oppose e.g. gay marriage laws in favor of letting gay couples be, they are practicing Liberalism.  OTOH when they start legislating affirmative action or banning big sugar drinks, that's Leftism.  Passive versus active to oversimplify it.

Republicans practice Liberalism too when they stand for certain (but not all) deregulation, e.g. of small businesses.  And they should be proud to tout it when they do.

Of course, _some _amount of regulation is necessary in any society, unless we want anarchy (which is what I associate the term "libertarian" with and why I don't use it).  You can't have a system of roads, and yet oppose the idea of traffic lights.  If your business is, say, food production, there must be some authority in place to ensure you're not disseminating e coli or something.  That's where we need the balance of left and right on top of a Liberalist framework.  A minimal boundary line set by the people, for the people.  But not no boundary lines at all.

But to dichotomize right and left into a vast swamp of heroes and monsters so that we can eliminate the monsters, is a competitive rather than cooperative philosophy, and benefits no one except those who see politics not as a vehicle not for sociopolitical philosophy but for a meaningless football game.  That's why I oppose these linguistic distortions.

{end paste}


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why, in my opinion, being able to define the terms is so critical.  Most modern conservatives aka classical liberals can define the terms.  Very few, maybe none, of the modern American liberals can or will even try.
> 
> I have asked, begged, offered, goaded our liberal friends here to provide a coherant definition of modern American liberalism, and so far not one has been able to do so.  They throw out vague terms and fuzzy feel good phrases, but not a single thing that could be a guiding principle for what laws and regulation should apply and what should not.  (Or perhaps they actually can write a description, but would be embarrassed at how it would look written down?)
> If the goal is to return to a set of fundamentals of liberty, it is not necessary to trash other groups or individuals or political parties or whatever.  You know what you want to accomplish and the Founders gave us the prnciples to use to do that and to measure every function and action of government against.  Conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians want to return to those principles.  Most liberals ignore them and/or shrug them off as irrelevent or unimportant.
> 
> If the goal is to force everybody into a prescribed preconceived mold of what society is supposed to be and demand that everybody toe specific acceptable language, mindset, and fuzzy concepts of collectivism under the authority of an authoritarian central government, then you are describing a liberal.   The American liberal/leftist is the statist, the political class, that demands strict controls on what society must and must not tolerate, and looks to a monarch or other authoritarian government to enforce it.  It is the antithesis of liberty.  And that is why the conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians abhore liberalism.
> 
> But I wonder if Pogo can write a reasonably short and coherant definition of the differences he sees between the American left and the American liberal?  I figure if anybody can, he can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxy, I do hope you aren't holding your breath. Without catch phrases these people would be mute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CandySlice, thanks for quoting this - I totally missed it. And Foxy, thanks for the flattering invitation.
> 
> I'm still constrained with things to do and this is a topic worthy of time and thought, but allow me to transfer some stuff from another thread, where it's not at all on topic:
> 
> {begin paste 1}
> I guess first thing, I'm not sure why posters here seem to insist on redefining Liberalism as "classical" Liberalism.  I suspect it's a way of driving a wedge into the word so it can then be demonized.  And that's kinda weird.
> 
> When I say "Liberalism founded this country" I refer to the philosophy, new and revolutionary at the time, that sees the common populace as the driver of the vehicle, as opposed to the hierarchical structure of church/state/aristocracy that had held sway before that point in history.  That concept of Liberalism comes under fire from both the left and the right for their own purposes of power-hungriness.
> 
> To revert to a previous example: the idea of egalitarianism, the "all men are created equal" plank of the platform and vital artery of our Constitution, is in every sense a Liberal concept.  The idea of Affirmative Action, where the State actually _takes action_ to make that happen --rather than _letting _it happen and refraining from influencing it, that is a Leftist concept.  That's what I mean by the difference between them.  Liberal leaves it to grow by itself; Leftist takes action to make it happen.  So does Right, with its obsession with gay marriage and the like.
> 
> As far as I remember the term "Liberal" first began to be demonized in the presidential election of 1988 when it became a staple of the Bush stump speech against Dukakis.  H.W. would use the term as if it were an insult.  It was a deliberate dumbing-down that ignored the entire history of our nation for the sake of a cheap sound bite.  Had Bush and his Lee Atwater guru chosen an honest path they might have instead insisted "Dukakis is no Liberal" as a strategy.  But noooo...
> 
> I might have missed some rhetorical dynamic before that time but that's when I noticed it.
> 
> And it seems to be (this is a theory) part of some grand scheme to redefine "Liberal" -- the concept we're born on -- as a political "side", deliberately conflated with a concoction of Leftist Authoritarians so that that demonized group can then be Eliminated, which then turns everything over to the Rightist Authoritarians (the fascists), who are the entity driving the dumb-down for that purpose.
> 
> That's what it looks like to this observer anyway.
> 
> {end paste 1, begin paste 2}
> 
> 1988 is what I remember because at the time watching the way H.W. spat the term it struck me as quite odd and I thought, "is that going to work"?  Then I remembered the observation of H.L. Mencken and realized that it probably would
> 
> That the left, or more accurately the "Democrats", called themselves liberals is understandable given their legacy of association with the commoner classes; after all when they oppose e.g. gay marriage laws in favor of letting gay couples be, they are practicing Liberalism.  OTOH when they start legislating affirmative action or banning big sugar drinks, that's Leftism.  Passive versus active to oversimplify it.
> 
> Republicans practice Liberalism too when they stand for certain (but not all) deregulation, e.g. of small businesses.  And they should be proud to tout it when they do.
> 
> Of course, _some _amount of regulation is necessary in any society, unless we want anarchy (which is what I associate the term "libertarian" with and why I don't use it).  You can't have a system of roads, and yet oppose the idea of traffic lights.  If your business is, say, food production, there must be some authority in place to ensure you're not disseminating e coli or something.  That's where we need the balance of left and right on top of a Liberalist framework.  A minimal boundary line set by the people, for the people.  But not no boundary lines at all.
> 
> But to dichotomize right and left into a vast swamp of heroes and monsters so that we can eliminate the monsters, is a competitive rather than cooperative philosophy, and benefits no one except those who see politics not as a vehicle not for sociopolitical philosophy but for a meaningless football game.  That's why I oppose these linguistic distortions.
Click to expand...


I take this as an honest but polite way of saying that you can't or won't write a definition of modern American liberalism either.  

We use the term 'classical liberalism' to distinguish the liberalism of the Founders from the modern American liberalism of today that has virtually no common ground with late 18th century liberalism.   True libertarians (small "L") bear little resemblance to Libertarians (large "L") who are leftists in the sense that they would use the government to enforce a form of anarchy rather than allow the people to form the society they wish to have.   As Americans understand them and use them, the definitions of the 17th Century are vastly different from the defintions of the 21st Century.

Take your example of regulating foodstuff.

An enforcable regulation that contaminated foodstuffs may not be brought into the country or transported across state lines with impunity meets the definition of protection of unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  It addresses what the states themselves cannot do to prevent violation of unalienable rights via physical, environmental, or economic violence.   Ditto the states have no reasonable means of regulating shared water sources, shared air, shared communications on the airways, etc. and it is reasonable that federal regulations protect rights of all by necessary regulation of such things.   That is a modern American conservative, rightist, classical liberal, libertarian (little "L") concept and something they condone.   So do the Leftists/liberals/statists/political class, but they aren't willing to leave it at that.

When the federal government presumes to tell us what we must feed the school children, regulates how we organize and run our businesses, presumes to dictate how we must or must not use our property, dictates who we must subsidize, or uses our resources for its own comfort or increase, we have left the Founders' principles in the distant dust and have entered the realm of statism and oppressive authority that they intended to prohibit with the Constitution.

Modern American leftists/liberals/statists/political class want or condone or defend government intrusion into many areas the Founders never intended.

Modern American rightists/conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians (little "L") do not.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxy, I do hope you aren't holding your breath. Without catch phrases these people would be mute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice, thanks for quoting this - I totally missed it. And Foxy, thanks for the flattering invitation.
> 
> I'm still constrained with things to do and this is a topic worthy of time and thought, but allow me to transfer some stuff from another thread, where it's not at all on topic:
> 
> {begin paste 1}
> I guess first thing, I'm not sure why posters here seem to insist on redefining Liberalism as "classical" Liberalism.  I suspect it's a way of driving a wedge into the word so it can then be demonized.  And that's kinda weird.
> 
> When I say "Liberalism founded this country" I refer to the philosophy, new and revolutionary at the time, that sees the common populace as the driver of the vehicle, as opposed to the hierarchical structure of church/state/aristocracy that had held sway before that point in history.  That concept of Liberalism comes under fire from both the left and the right for their own purposes of power-hungriness.
> 
> To revert to a previous example: the idea of egalitarianism, the "all men are created equal" plank of the platform and vital artery of our Constitution, is in every sense a Liberal concept.  The idea of Affirmative Action, where the State actually _takes action_ to make that happen --rather than _letting _it happen and refraining from influencing it, that is a Leftist concept.  That's what I mean by the difference between them.  Liberal leaves it to grow by itself; Leftist takes action to make it happen.  So does Right, with its obsession with gay marriage and the like.
> 
> As far as I remember the term "Liberal" first began to be demonized in the presidential election of 1988 when it became a staple of the Bush stump speech against Dukakis.  H.W. would use the term as if it were an insult.  It was a deliberate dumbing-down that ignored the entire history of our nation for the sake of a cheap sound bite.  Had Bush and his Lee Atwater guru chosen an honest path they might have instead insisted "Dukakis is no Liberal" as a strategy.  But noooo...
> 
> I might have missed some rhetorical dynamic before that time but that's when I noticed it.
> 
> And it seems to be (this is a theory) part of some grand scheme to redefine "Liberal" -- the concept we're born on -- as a political "side", deliberately conflated with a concoction of Leftist Authoritarians so that that demonized group can then be Eliminated, which then turns everything over to the Rightist Authoritarians (the fascists), who are the entity driving the dumb-down for that purpose.
> 
> That's what it looks like to this observer anyway.
> 
> {end paste 1, begin paste 2}
> 
> 1988 is what I remember because at the time watching the way H.W. spat the term it struck me as quite odd and I thought, "is that going to work"?  Then I remembered the observation of H.L. Mencken and realized that it probably would
> 
> That the left, or more accurately the "Democrats", called themselves liberals is understandable given their legacy of association with the commoner classes; after all when they oppose e.g. gay marriage laws in favor of letting gay couples be, they are practicing Liberalism.  OTOH when they start legislating affirmative action or banning big sugar drinks, that's Leftism.  Passive versus active to oversimplify it.
> 
> Republicans practice Liberalism too when they stand for certain (but not all) deregulation, e.g. of small businesses.  And they should be proud to tout it when they do.
> 
> Of course, _some _amount of regulation is necessary in any society, unless we want anarchy (which is what I associate the term "libertarian" with and why I don't use it).  You can't have a system of roads, and yet oppose the idea of traffic lights.  If your business is, say, food production, there must be some authority in place to ensure you're not disseminating e coli or something.  That's where we need the balance of left and right on top of a Liberalist framework.  A minimal boundary line set by the people, for the people.  But not no boundary lines at all.
> 
> But to dichotomize right and left into a vast swamp of heroes and monsters so that we can eliminate the monsters, is a competitive rather than cooperative philosophy, and benefits no one except those who see politics not as a vehicle not for sociopolitical philosophy but for a meaningless football game.  That's why I oppose these linguistic distortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take this as an honest but polite way of saying that you can't or won't write a definition of modern American liberalism either.
Click to expand...


Oh no you don't.  I made that pasted-post before you made this request.  It wasn't what I was addressing as I didn't have time (and still don't) to address it directly so I pasted previously existing material that may have touched on it.  It will have to do for now.  Suffice to say you're still lumping "liberals" in with "leftists" and so-called "classical liberals" (a term I will not accept) with "conservatives", and neither lump is accurate.

Will have to explore this later; I shouldn't even be writing this.  People like you who take the time to actually think about this stuff and challenge others to, oh you're just a bad influence.


----------



## Foxfyre

Ah, Pogo rejects the term "classical liberal".  Fortunately those who have studied this in depth, including academia, do not.

Okay so he won't accept my definition of Classical Liberal.  I wonder if he will also thumb his nose at these (emphasis is mine):



> Definition of Classical Liberalism
> 
> Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals  including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets  as well as limited government. It developed in 18th-century Europe and drew on the economic writings of Adam Smith and the growing notion of social progress. Liberalism was also influenced by the writings of Thomas Hobbes, who argued that governments exist to protect individuals from each other. In 19th- and 20th-century America, the values of classical liberalism became dominant in both major political parties. The term is sometimes used broadly to refer to all forms of liberalism prior to the 20th century. Conservatives and libertarians often invoke classical liberalism to mean a fundamental belief in minimal government.
> Definition of Classical Liberalism | Chegg.com





> What is Liberalism
> 
> *What is Liberalism?. It is a political orientation which favors the social progress by implementing law and reform rather than revolution. It is the belief in the importance of equal rights and liberty. This ideology began in the 18th century, which was a movement to self government and away from aristocracy. *The ideology includes: The primacy of the individual or the nation, ideas of self determination, opposed to the state, family, economy and politics. Aristocracy is a government form in which the best qualified rule.
> 
> *What is liberalism fundamental idea?. This political movement supports such fundamental ideas which are the following: Liberal democracy, human rights, constitutionalism, fair and free elections, freedom of religion and free trade.*  It is known that these ideas are accepted widely and by political groups that do not profess a liberal ideological orientation. An ideological orientation is an orientation which characterizes the thinking of a nation or group. *Liberalism includes several traditional and intellectual trends. Its most dominant variants are: Social and Classical liberalism.*
> 
> *What is classical liberalism?. Classical liberalism was developed in the 18th century and became very popular in the Americas and Western Europe. Is defined as a philosophy, which is committed to the ideology of limited government, freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press and free markets.*  It advocated a specific kind of government, public policy and society required as a result of the urbanization and industrial revolution. Classical liberalism was known to be a dominant political theory on the United Kingdom during the 18th century until the First World War.
> 
> 
> *What is social liberalism?. Also known as Modern liberalism,* it is the belief of having social justice included on this ideology. *It believes that the legitimate role of the state includes: Unemployment, health care, addressing economic and education. Social liberalism views the good of the community as harmonious with the freedom of all individuals. This ideology parties and ideas tend to be considered centre left or centrist.* Centrism also known as centre left is the practice or ideal to promote policies which stands different from the standard political right and political left. This ideal tends to focus on policies such as: Human rights, civil liberties; social and economic liberalism.
> What is Liberalism; Modern, Social, Classical and Economic Liberalism Definition and Principles





> Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.
> 
> *Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights*.
> 
> *People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.*
> 
> On the left of the political spectrum, things are more complicated. The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the economic sphere, then, almost anything goes.
> What Is Classical Liberalism? | NCPA





> *In order to assign consistent terms in this study, I must first define classical liberalism.* Scholars have offered different interpretations of this term. For example, E. K. Bramsted, co-editor of the monumental anthology Western Liberalism: A History in Documents from Locke to Croce (1978), asserts that the classical liberal champions the rights of individuals (with careful attention to the more endangered rights of minorities), the right of property in particular, the government's obligation to protect property, limited constitutional government, and a belief in social progress (36). John Gray broadens this description in Liberalism (1986) to include philosophies demonstrating individualism, egalitarianism, and universalism (x). In Liberalism Old and New (1991), J. G. Merquior argues that the theories of human rights, constitutionalism, and classical economics define classical liberal thought.
> 
> These scholars and others actually agree far more than they differ concerning the philosophy's components. For the purpose of this chronology and analysis, I shall apply a broad set of criteria to determine if an idea or individual fits within this intellectual tradition.
> 
> *In this context, classical liberalism includes the following:*
> &#9726;an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,
> &#9726;the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,
> &#9726;the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and
> &#9726;the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.
> The Rise, Decline, and Reemergence of Classical Liberalism


----------



## thanatos144

You know what classic liberal means to me???? Ron Paul racist fucks trying to act the conservative.


----------



## Pogo

Foxy, I'm sorry you went to all that trouble for nothing.  Ever hear the expression, "opinions are like assholes"?  I couldn't be less interested in dueling links for this term or that one.  I'm not even going to bother reading it.  It's a waste of time.

My point, I'll have to make it quick, is that floating a term like "classical Liberalism" is an attempt to redefine the word "Liberalism" and dichotomize it into good and evil witches -- you set Liberalism aside as "classical" and claim it for yourself, then you get to demonize the one the other team uses.  In other words I'm not interested in who defines it which way -- I'm interested in WHY they're going out of their way to redefine it at all.

I'm not going to play that game, I don't care if you get a link from some wag at every university in the world plus the town librarian in Toledo.  That's a pissing contest and it's part and parcel of the decline of discourse.   So save your typing fingers.  It's irrelevant.

Back later.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> You know what classic liberal means to me???? Ron Paul racist fucks trying to act the conservative.



What is a "Ron Paul racist fuck?" If Paul ever said anything racist, I missed it.


----------



## thanatos144

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what classic liberal means to me???? Ron Paul racist fucks trying to act the conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "Ron Paul racist fuck?" If Paul ever said anything racist, I missed it.
Click to expand...


You didnt get his news letters?


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> You didnt get his news letters?



Is there a secret code or "dog whistle" reviving the KKK in them?


----------



## thanatos144

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didnt get his news letters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a secret code or "dog whistle" reviving the KKK in them?
Click to expand...


Google them... They are eye openers unless you are a Paulbot then it doesn't matter cause you will refuse to see anything bad against Paul. But actually Paul has little todo with the racist part in my statement.....I was talking about the paulbots themselves. Some are not racist but most are confederate loving slaver worshipers.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> Google them... They are eye openers unless you are a Paulbot then it doesn't matter cause you will refuse to see anything bad against Paul. But actually Paul has little todo with the racist part in my statement.....I was talking about the paulbots themselves. Some are not racist but most are confederate loving slaver worshipers.



You seem to have confused that fact that a voluntary union must, by necessity include the right of member states to secede, with a support for slavery. These are two distinct propositions.


----------



## thanatos144

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google them... They are eye openers unless you are a Paulbot then it doesn't matter cause you will refuse to see anything bad against Paul. But actually Paul has little todo with the racist part in my statement.....I was talking about the paulbots themselves. Some are not racist but most are confederate loving slaver worshipers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have confused that fact that a voluntary union must, by necessity include the right of member states to secede, with a support for slavery. These are two distinct propositions.
Click to expand...


Yes because the confederates were all about slavery and nothing to do with secession. If it was just that they wouldn't have started a war.


----------



## Foxfyre

thanatos144 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didnt get his news letters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a secret code or "dog whistle" reviving the KKK in them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google them... They are eye openers unless you are a Paulbot then it doesn't matter cause you will refuse to see anything bad against Paul. But actually Paul has little todo with the racist part in my statement.....I was talking about the paulbots themselves. Some are not racist but most are confederate loving slaver worshipers.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you could name one or two who are.   You can google just about any subject you want and find hundreds if not thousands or even millions of hits that you can use to back up whatever you wish to believe or prove.  In fact there are those who have made it a huge hobby to insert as much misinformation, propaganda, specific code phrases, etc. etc. etc. into the data base as they can find time to do, and willing idiots soak it all up and repeat it even more on message boards and blogs all over the internet.

Choosing CREDIBLE sites out of the huge number of those hits is a bit more difficult, but it is something that honorable people do.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxy, I'm sorry you went to all that trouble for nothing.  Ever hear the expression, "opinions are like assholes"?  I couldn't be less interested in dueling links for this term or that one.  I'm not even going to bother reading it.  It's a waste of time.
> 
> My point, I'll have to make it quick, is that floating a term like "classical Liberalism" is an attempt to redefine the word "Liberalism" and dichotomize it into good and evil witches -- you set Liberalism aside as "classical" and claim it for yourself, then you get to demonize the one the other team uses.  In other words I'm not interested in who defines it which way -- I'm interested in WHY they're going out of their way to redefine it at all.
> 
> I'm not going to play that game, I don't care if you get a link from some wag at every university in the world plus the town librarian in Toledo.  That's a pissing contest and it's part and parcel of the decline of discourse.   So save your typing fingers.  It's irrelevant.
> 
> Back later.



You won't play the game of using real information from highly credible sources rather than your own biased opinion?  A pity.  I did not redefine anything.  It is what it is.  And if you refuse to educate yourself about that, then discussion is rather pointless on the subject isn't it.  But an unwillingness to have an open mind and/or be educated is why we Ameicans spend most of our time accusing and blaming people instead of focusing on solutions.

So I will look to others to have the discussion of the thread topic.   I love you anyway.


----------



## thanatos144

Foxfyre said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a secret code or "dog whistle" reviving the KKK in them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google them... They are eye openers unless you are a Paulbot then it doesn't matter cause you will refuse to see anything bad against Paul. But actually Paul has little todo with the racist part in my statement.....I was talking about the paulbots themselves. Some are not racist but most are confederate loving slaver worshipers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could name one or two who are.   You can google just about any subject you want and find hundreds if not thousands or even millions of hits that you can use to back up whatever you wish to believe or prove.  In fact there are those who have made it a huge hobby to insert as much misinformation, propaganda, specific code phrases, etc. etc. etc. into the data base as they can find time to do, and willing idiots soak it all up and repeat it even more on message boards and blogs all over the internet.
> 
> Choosing CREDIBLE sites out of the huge number of those hits is a bit more difficult, but it is something that honorable people do.
Click to expand...


This isnt new.... For fuck sake go look yourself! The racist news letters has been known about for well over a decade.


----------



## Foxfyre

thanatos144 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google them... They are eye openers unless you are a Paulbot then it doesn't matter cause you will refuse to see anything bad against Paul. But actually Paul has little todo with the racist part in my statement.....I was talking about the paulbots themselves. Some are not racist but most are confederate loving slaver worshipers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could name one or two who are.   You can google just about any subject you want and find hundreds if not thousands or even millions of hits that you can use to back up whatever you wish to believe or prove.  In fact there are those who have made it a huge hobby to insert as much misinformation, propaganda, specific code phrases, etc. etc. etc. into the data base as they can find time to do, and willing idiots soak it all up and repeat it even more on message boards and blogs all over the internet.
> 
> Choosing CREDIBLE sites out of the huge number of those hits is a bit more difficult, but it is something that honorable people do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isnt new.... For fuck sake go look yourself! The racist news letters has been known about for well over a decade.
Click to expand...


If it has been well known about for well over a decade, then you shouldn't have any problem naming a couple of the racists and linking to one of those newsletters.  You made the claim.  What do you base it on that you can verify?

You see my observation is that  liberals often tend to make criticisms, complaints, and allusions to stuff and trash people and concepts and then refuse to even consider any valid rebuttal or context or mitigating information about that.

I'm giving you an opportunity to prove me wrong about that at least in this case.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxy, I'm sorry you went to all that trouble for nothing.  Ever hear the expression, "opinions are like assholes"?  I couldn't be less interested in dueling links for this term or that one.  I'm not even going to bother reading it.  It's a waste of time.
> 
> My point, I'll have to make it quick, is that floating a term like "classical Liberalism" is an attempt to redefine the word "Liberalism" and dichotomize it into good and evil witches -- you set Liberalism aside as "classical" and claim it for yourself, then you get to demonize the one the other team uses.  In other words I'm not interested in who defines it which way -- I'm interested in WHY they're going out of their way to redefine it at all.
> 
> I'm not going to play that game, I don't care if you get a link from some wag at every university in the world plus the town librarian in Toledo.  That's a pissing contest and it's part and parcel of the decline of discourse.   So save your typing fingers.  It's irrelevant.
> 
> Back later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't play the game of using real information from highly credible sources rather than your own biased opinion?  A pity.  I did not redefine anything.  It is what it is.  And if you refuse to educate yourself about that, then discussion is rather pointless on the subject isn't it.  But an unwillingness to have an open mind and/or be educated is why we Ameicans spend most of our time accusing and blaming people instead of focusing on solutions.
> 
> So I will look to others to have the discussion of the thread topic.   I love you anyway.
Click to expand...


Look Foxy -- and this is just a refreshment break-- here's your congintive failure: I just said I will not accept the term, and you came back with "well what about this guy, what about that definition, wait look over here..." 

What part of "I will not accept the term" is sailing over your head here?  I will not accept the term, *period*.  I don't care what definition either of us comes up with.  It's not a question of the term's definition; it's a question of its very _existence_.  There is an agenda behind pushing that very existence, and I will not accept that agenda.  Period.  Not a question of your definition, my definition, his her or its definiton.

OK?
Again, just a refreshment break.  Will expound under cover of darkness and/or fatigue, later.

Love ya Foxy.

And PS if you're suggesting above that Thenatos is a "liberal", then it just underscores my point that the term as you're using it has no meaning.  Stop trying to pick fights with anything that moves.


----------



## Foxfyre

Geez.  I might as well say that I don't believe there was ever a debate on global warming or that a Flat Earth Society ever existed or there is no such thing as quantum physicis so don't bother me with any evidence that any or all exist or ever existed.  And how do we know whether Thanatos or anybody else is a liberal if we can't come to an agreement on what the defintion of liberal is?    I love you too, Pogo.


----------



## dblack

There's certainly an element of futility in any discussions of 'liberal' or 'conservative' values without first squaring off against all the confusion regarding what the terms themselves mean. If you want even bigger challenge, try talking to people about 'corporatism'.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> There's certainly an element of futility in any discussions of 'liberal' or 'conservative' values without first squaring off against all the confusion regarding what the terms themselves mean. If you want even bigger challenge, try talking to people about 'corporatism'.



I would actually love to discuss corporatism but on a different thread.  Dealing with the topic on this one is complicated enough, most especially as you say, we can't get anybody to focus on the definitions.  And I'm about to throw in the towel on that for that very reason.  When you have people who absolutely are NOT interested in the concepts but are rather interested in blaming or trashing somebody, no producive discussion is going to take place.

You and I are often on different pages on this stuff dblack, but I never put you in the category of the trashers and bashers, both left and right, but you are dubbed a worthy debater who is now and then capable of looking past partisan ideology and rhetoric and pesonalities and can see the principle involved.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> This isnt new.... For fuck sake go look yourself! The racist news letters has been known about for well over a decade.



It's not new, and it's not credible. 

Again, that Paul and virtually all Libertarians, myself included, recognize that Southern states had the right to leave the Union, is not an endorsement of Slavery.

The question of whether a state can secede is the difference between a union and occupied territory. IF the USA is an Empire of conquered territory, then the position that a state cannot leave is logical. But if we maintain the fiction that we are a free country, then states have the right to sever the voluntary alliance they have with the Federal government.

This says nothing of support for the Antebellum South, which was a feudal shit hole where a virtual landed gentry ran roughshod on an impoverished populace using corrupt laws to block economic progress by free whites. In many ways, slaves had a better life that the poverty ridden whites did in the Old South. It was miserable place. But none of this alters the facts.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isnt new.... For fuck sake go look yourself! The racist news letters has been known about for well over a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not new, and it's not credible.
> 
> Again, that Paul and virtually all Libertarians, myself included, recognize that Southern states had the right to leave the Union, is not an endorsement of Slavery.
> 
> The question of whether a state can secede is the difference between a union and occupied territory. IF the USA is an Empire of conquered territory, then the position that a state cannot leave is logical. But if we maintain the fiction that we are a free country, then states have the right to sever the voluntary alliance they have with the Federal government.
> 
> This says nothing of support for the Antebellum South, which was a feudal shit hole where a virtual landed gentry ran roughshod on an impoverished populace using corrupt laws to block economic progress by free whites. In many ways, slaves had a better life that the poverty ridden whites did in the Old South. It was miserable place. But none of this alters the facts.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  The fact that some corporations have played and are playing the government like fiddles to the detriment of us all is always important to note, but the fact is that the vast majority of corporations are mom and pop operations who are honest, tax paying citizens doing the best they can with what they have just as most of us are.

The fact that there were evil people in the old South or that racists exist now does not change the fact that MOST even pre-Civil War southerners were not slave owners and would not want to be while there were some northerners who did not want to abolish slavery because they were financially benefitting from it.  And in both the north and south there were individuals who would cheat their own grandmothers or kick them to the curb if they thought it would benefit them personally.

Such people exist today among all races and ethnicities, among all walks of life, in all political parties, and among people we see and work and do business with every day.

And yet the vast majority of Americans now and at the time the Constitution was signed into law, never condoned or accepted slavery in any form, never cheated anybody intentionally, never have treated their fellows maliciously or dishonestly or hatefully, and do the best they can to get by with what they have.  And throughout history we read or hear of people who were culturally conditioned to one point of view and came to believe they were wrong and threw off a belief system they came to believe was bad or evil.

And because all kinds of people with all kinds of beliefs and guilty of all manner of sins and blessed with all manner of virtues exist, it is futile to single out a single group for blame or retribution.

Far better to focus on what principles and concepts we consider acceptable for a free people and what needs to happen to make them the norm.   I have come to believe in conservatism/aka classical liberalism/aka libertarianism (little L) as holding the solutions to most problems facing us as a nation, and liberalism as the largest root of what ails us.  I am open to being convinced that my belief is flawed or wrong.


----------



## dblack

I do think we often fail to appreciate how much classical liberalism and modern liberalism have in common.


----------



## thanatos144

my point proven if you are a PaulBot you will never believe it.


----------



## dblack

thanatos144 said:


> my point proven if you are a PaulBot you will never believe it.



You won the thread!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUCF8p3TGcQ]Tim and Eric Awesome Show Great Job!: Success - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> I do think we often fail to appreciate how much classical liberalism and modern liberalism have in common.



Well I don't appreciate it it because I don't think classical liberalism and modern American liberalism have ANYTHING in common.  Modern American liberalism is as antithesis to classical liberalism as it gets.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Pogo said:


> Foxy, I'm sorry you went to all that trouble for nothing.  Ever hear the expression, "opinions are like assholes"?  I couldn't be less interested in dueling links for this term or that one.  I'm not even going to bother reading it.  It's a waste of time.
> 
> My point, I'll have to make it quick, is that floating a term like "classical Liberalism" is an attempt to redefine the word "Liberalism" and dichotomize it into good and evil witches -- you set Liberalism aside as "classical" and claim it for yourself, then you get to demonize the one the other team uses.  In other words I'm not interested in who defines it which way -- I'm interested in WHY they're going out of their way to redefine it at all.
> 
> I'm not going to play that game, I don't care if you get a link from some wag at every university in the world plus the town librarian in Toledo.  That's a pissing contest and it's part and parcel of the decline of discourse.   So save your typing fingers.  It's irrelevant.
> 
> Back later.



Agreed. 

No one is going to play that game, its pointless. 

Its just as pointless as trying to engage libertarians, extreme rightists, and fringe conservatives as to the original intent of the Framers, the meaning of the Constitution, and the interpretive authority of the courts in the context of judicial review.  

Indeed, its pointless to attempt any discourse with those who hold the untenable position that every ruling by the Court is wrong, up to and including _Marbury_, that the courts have no interpretive authority, and that the Constitution means whatever one wishes it to mean, absent any accepted context, recognized authority, or precedent.  

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, to refuse to acknowledge that case law  whether one agrees with it or not  compels only silence on the issue, as there exists not even a common judicial language to facilitate discourse.  

The Hamiltonian Constitutional paradigm prevailed, inevitable given the advent of a modern industrial America during start of the 20th Century, no other outcome was possible.  

Any desire to return to a pre-_Lochner_ judicial regime is a pathetic reactionary fantasy.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Geez.  I might as well say that I don't believe there was ever a debate on global warming or that a Flat Earth Society ever existed or there is no such thing as quantum physicis so don't bother me with any evidence that any or all exist or ever existed.  And how do we know whether Thanatos or anybody else is a liberal if we can't come to an agreement on what the defintion of liberal is?    I love you too, Pogo.



Miss me yet? 

To wrap up this loose end: what you've got up there with global warming, the Flat Earth Society et al, are actual things.  What I was talking about was a _terminology_.  And more importantly, the reason for that terminology.

Here's why it's important to make this point:


Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's certainly an element of futility in any discussions of 'liberal' or 'conservative' values without first squaring off against all the confusion regarding what the terms themselves mean. If you want even bigger challenge, try talking to people about 'corporatism'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would actually love to discuss corporatism but on a different thread.  Dealing with the topic on this one is complicated enough, most especially as you say, we can't get anybody to focus on the definitions.  And I'm about to throw in the towel on that for that very reason.  When you have people who absolutely are NOT interested in the concepts but are rather interested in blaming or trashing somebody, no producive discussion is going to take place.
Click to expand...


Focusing on the definitions is exactly what I've been trying to do.  When you try to split the term "Liberal" into a good liberal in the white hats (your side) and the evil liberal in black (the other side), you're engaging in lexicographical revisionism.  As noted before you've already lumped them into, respectively, Republicans and Democrats, and that's BS.  This is just the kind of Eliminationist tactic that degrades our discourse; paint the world into a good vs. evil dichotomy and proceed to destroy the evil.  Wrongheaded.

"Liberalism" means, meant, and will continue to mean, a 'laissez-faire' attitude, that government is like a referee, just there to ensure the playing field is level for the populace to act out its own interests unencumbered by government.  As noted before, the word "liberal" has been misused and conflated (I alluded to the 1988 presidential campaign, and I'd add the post-World War II McCarthy days, when the words "liberal" and "communist" were deliberately conflated by dishonest demagogues).  But there's no reason we need to continue that tomfoolery today.  It's not what "liberal" means and never was.

Take the USSR.  Please.  Some wags here will cite the Soviet Union as an example of "Liberalism"; it was in reality anything but.  It was certainly related to _*Leftism*_, at least superficially, though it had far more to do with Authoritarianism.  But Leftism isn't the same as Liberalism.  Liberalism gets opposed by both the left and the right.  Marxism, Fascism, affirmative action and gay marriage laws, to cite easy examples, are all examples from the left and the right that oppose liberalism.  Or take the case made in another thread of pornography: the Right opposes it because it's "immoral"; the Left opposes it because it objectifies and exploits women; the Liberal attitude is to simply let it be.  That's what _Liberal _means.

I submit to you that the concepts "left", "right", "liberal" and "conservative" are four different things, not two.  Trying to hitch one to ride with another is just not accurate.  But to paraphrase Jerry Lee Lewis, there's a whole lot of conflatin' goin' on, and it goes on for the express purpose of, again, painting the world into that black-and-white dichotomy so that the evil side, once identified, can be summarily eliminated and the protagonist side -- the one that created this false dichotomy -- gets to walk away with the world.  Or so they would dream.

That's not the way it should work; we need as noted before a balance between the right and the left, checking each the other, exerting only the minimal regulations on our Liberalist-derived government.  Not a bunch of demagogues trying to paint each other as evil monsters in an endless selfish game of political football just to "win" some personal points on political message boards.

Sorry, I'm more tired than I expected and I have a very distraught patient on the phone. I think I'm repeating myself, but I hope it's at least clear why I feel these terms should not be taken as lightly as we've been doing.  And that's why I won't accept the revision of _Liberal _into "classical liberal" so that we can morph the term into its own opposite.

And like it or not, Liberalism... meaning the movement that founded this country in the 18th century... originated from the left, i.e. the populist opposition to the then-status quo power channels of Church/State/Aristocracy.  Had it not, we'd still be living in a theocratic feudalism.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I had seen this thread sooner -- 1500 posts is more than I can digest.
> 
> Suffice to say (just to jump in midstream as a pretext to put the thread on my watch list), this last paragraph has it exactly backwards as far as what Liberalism actually is.  (Btw it's _laissez-faire_, "to let it happen").
> 
> Methinks there's a lot of wags confusing Liberalism with Leftism, or in this case with Authoritarianism.  That's quite a stretch.  Perhaps the question is why we want to poison a political term, let alone that it's the very philosophy that birthed this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, somebody's prolly already covered this on pages 4395 and 73469...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True and unfortunate. But for most people, 'liberal' means Democrat and 'conservative' means Republican. Neither of these is accurate, so it makes these discussions confusing at best. Are we talking about real 'liberal' values, or the authoritarian/corporatist ideology of the Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is why, in my opinion, being able to define the terms is so critical.  Most modern conservatives aka classical liberals can define the terms.  Very few, maybe none, of the modern American liberals can or will even try.
> 
> I have asked, begged, offered, goaded our liberal friends here to provide a coherant definition of modern American liberalism, and so far not one has been able to do so.  They throw out vague terms and fuzzy feel good phrases, but not a single thing that could be a guiding principle for what laws and regulation should apply and what should not.  (Or perhaps they actually can write a description, but would be embarrassed at how it would look written down?)
> 
> If the goal is to return to a set of fundamentals of liberty, it is not necessary to trash other groups or individuals or political parties or whatever.  You know what you want to accomplish and the Founders gave us the prnciples to use to do that and to measure every function and action of government against.  Conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians want to return to those principles.  Most liberals ignore them and/or shrug them off as irrelevent or unimportant.
> 
> If the goal is to force everybody into a prescribed preconceived mold of what society is supposed to be and demand that everybody toe specific acceptable language, mindset, and fuzzy concepts of collectivism under the authority of an authoritarian central government, then you are describing a liberal.   The American liberal/leftist is the statist, the political class, that demands strict controls on what society must and must not tolerate, and looks to a monarch or other authoritarian government to enforce it.  It is the antithesis of liberty.  And that is why the conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians abhore liberalism.
> 
> But I wonder if Pogo can write a reasonably short and coherant definition of the differences he sees between the American left and the American liberal?  I figure if anybody can, he can.
Click to expand...


You get pretty haughty as YOU deride and trash liberals. You are so self absorbed and full of hot air it gets sickening.

You can keep chanting "modern conservatives aka classical liberals" until the cows come home, that is a blatant LIE. There is not a liberal cell in a conservative's body. And liberals are the antithesis of authoritarians. You don't comprehend what authoritarianism REALLY is. 

Maybe a small, 1%, of the left would follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's overwhelmingly a conservative orientation. 

If today's liberals represent authoritarianism to you, so would our founding fathers. They didn't believe in corporatism as a way of governing. They created a government to address our problems and methods to redress our grievances. They would NEVER stand for corporatism or corporations crushing the little guy. Do you even know what the Boston Tea Party was all about? I DOUBT you do.


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do think we often fail to appreciate how much classical liberalism and modern liberalism have in common.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't appreciate it it because I don't think classical liberalism and modern American liberalism have ANYTHING in common.  Modern American liberalism is as antithesis to classical liberalism as it gets.
Click to expand...


Then why are they both called 'liberalism'? Isn't the common nomenclature a hint that they have something in common?


----------



## Pogo

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do think we often fail to appreciate how much classical liberalism and modern liberalism have in common.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't appreciate it it because I don't think classical liberalism and modern American liberalism have ANYTHING in common.  Modern American liberalism is as antithesis to classical liberalism as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are them both called 'liberalism'? Isn't the common nomenclature a hint that they have something in common?
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's why I try to get her (and others) to stop misusing the dumb-down soundbite definition.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do think we often fail to appreciate how much classical liberalism and modern liberalism have in common.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't appreciate it it because I don't think classical liberalism and modern American liberalism have ANYTHING in common.  Modern American liberalism is as antithesis to classical liberalism as it gets.
Click to expand...


FALSE. Conservatism is the antithesis of any form of liberalism. You are a Marketist, the siamese twin of a Marxist. 

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Here is one of the patron saints of libertarians...

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. 

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. 

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. 

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.


----------



## Uncensored2008

dblack said:


> I do think we often fail to appreciate how much classical liberalism and modern liberalism have in common.



I agree with Pogo on the point that there is liberalism - it is neither classical nor modern, it is simply liberalism.

The democrats are not liberals, and haven't been for at least a century. What is falsely termed "modern liberal" is simply leftist. Liberals and leftists have nothing at all in common.


----------



## Uncensored2008

dblack said:


> Then why are they both called 'liberalism'? Isn't the common nomenclature a hint that they have something in common?



Why is China called "The Peoples Republic" when it is neither a republic, nor controlled by the people?

What you call "modern liberalism" is simply leftism. it is authoritarian and collectivist - the polar opposite of "liberal."


----------



## dblack

Uncensored2008 said:


> What you call "modern liberalism" is simply leftism. it is authoritarian and collectivist - the polar opposite of "liberal."



Before you could make such a claim, we'd first have to agree on a definition of 'modern liberalism'. And if this thread has shown, if nothing else, just how difficult that can be.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do think we often fail to appreciate how much classical liberalism and modern liberalism have in common.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't appreciate it it because I don't think classical liberalism and modern American liberalism have ANYTHING in common.  Modern American liberalism is as antithesis to classical liberalism as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are they both called 'liberalism'? Isn't the common nomenclature a hint that they have something in common?
Click to expand...


Not at all.  To wit:
Democratic People's Republic of North Korea.   You would be hard put to find any common ground between 'democractic' in North Korea with 'democratic' in less totalitarian countries.

The term 'classical liberal' was coined precisely because the concept has NOTHING in common with modern day American liberalism while it does reflect the liberalism of its day.  And because some here would refuse to acknowledge the differences, it was necessary to differentiate between the two.  The Founders, and the great European thinkers they drew many of their concepts from, were the liberals of their day.  Modern day American 'liberals' have turned those concepts on their head and reject almost all of them.

Here again are the definitions (and explanations) previous posted:



> Definition of Classical Liberalism
> 
> Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals &#8212; including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets &#8212; as well as limited government. It developed in 18th-century Europe and drew on the economic writings of Adam Smith and the growing notion of social progress. Liberalism was also influenced by the writings of Thomas Hobbes, who argued that governments exist to protect individuals from each other. In 19th- and 20th-century America, the values of classical liberalism became dominant in both major political parties. The term is sometimes used broadly to refer to all forms of liberalism prior to the 20th century. Conservatives and libertarians often invoke classical liberalism to mean a fundamental belief in minimal government.
> Definition of Classical Liberalism | Chegg.com





> What is Liberalism
> 
> *What is Liberalism?. It is a political orientation which favors the social progress by implementing law and reform rather than revolution. It is the belief in the importance of equal rights and liberty. This ideology began in the 18th century, which was a movement to self government and away from aristocracy. *The ideology includes: The primacy of the individual or the nation, ideas of self determination, opposed to the state, family, economy and politics. Aristocracy is a government form in which the best qualified rule.
> 
> *What is liberalism fundamental idea?. This political movement supports such fundamental ideas which are the following: Liberal democracy, human rights, constitutionalism, fair and free elections, freedom of religion and free trade.*  It is known that these ideas are accepted widely and by political groups that do not profess a liberal ideological orientation. An ideological orientation is an orientation which characterizes the thinking of a nation or group. *Liberalism includes several traditional and intellectual trends. Its most dominant variants are: Social and Classical liberalism.*
> 
> *What is classical liberalism?. Classical liberalism was developed in the 18th century and became very popular in the Americas and Western Europe. Is defined as a philosophy, which is committed to the ideology of limited government, freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press and free markets.*  It advocated a specific kind of government, public policy and society required as a result of the urbanization and industrial revolution. Classical liberalism was known to be a dominant political theory on the United Kingdom during the 18th century until the First World War.
> 
> 
> *What is social liberalism?. Also known as Modern liberalism,* it is the belief of having social justice included on this ideology. *It believes that the legitimate role of the state includes: Unemployment, health care, addressing economic and education. Social liberalism views the good of the community as harmonious with the freedom of all individuals. This ideology parties and ideas tend to be considered centre left or centrist.* Centrism also known as centre left is the practice or ideal to promote policies which stands different from the standard political right and political left. This ideal tends to focus on policies such as: Human rights, civil liberties; social and economic liberalism.
> What is Liberalism; Modern, Social, Classical and Economic Liberalism Definition and Principles





> Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.
> 
> *Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights*.
> 
> *People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.*
> 
> On the left of the political spectrum, things are more complicated. The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the economic sphere, then, almost anything goes.
> What Is Classical Liberalism? | NCPA





> *In order to assign consistent terms in this study, I must first define classical liberalism.* Scholars have offered different interpretations of this term. For example, E. K. Bramsted, co-editor of the monumental anthology Western Liberalism: A History in Documents from Locke to Croce (1978), asserts that the classical liberal champions the rights of individuals (with careful attention to the more endangered rights of minorities), the right of property in particular, the government's obligation to protect property, limited constitutional government, and a belief in social progress (36). John Gray broadens this description in Liberalism (1986) to include philosophies demonstrating individualism, egalitarianism, and universalism (x). In Liberalism Old and New (1991), J. G. Merquior argues that the theories of human rights, constitutionalism, and classical economics define classical liberal thought.
> 
> These scholars and others actually agree far more than they differ concerning the philosophy's components. For the purpose of this chronology and analysis, I shall apply a broad set of criteria to determine if an idea or individual fits within this intellectual tradition.
> 
> *In this context, classical liberalism includes the following:*
> &#9726;an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,
> &#9726;the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,
> &#9726;the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and
> &#9726;the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.
> The Rise, Decline, and Reemergence of Classical Liberalism


----------



## Uncensored2008

dblack said:


> Before you could make such a claim, we'd first have to agree on a definition of 'modern liberalism'. And if this thread has shown, if nothing else, just how difficult that can be.



It is the philosophy and political movement of the American democratic party and their fellow travelers in the Green, American Communist, Socialist, and Peace & Freedom parties.


----------



## Foxfyre

At least two of the previously posted definitions illustrate the distinct differences between classical liberalism and the modern American social liberalism in the present day.

Do any of our members who describe themselves as 'liberal' support any of these classical liberal concepts?

&#9726;an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,

&#9726;the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,

&#9726;the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and

&#9726;the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do think we often fail to appreciate how much classical liberalism and modern liberalism have in common.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Pogo on the point that there is liberalism - it is neither classical nor modern, it is simply liberalism.
> 
> The democrats are not liberals, and haven't been for at least a century. What is falsely termed "modern liberal" is simply leftist. Liberals and leftists have nothing at all in common.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't say "nothing at all", but yes it is unproductive to conflate the terms.

Again, when (e.g.) Democrats oppose laws restricting who can get married and such, they *are *being Liberals who believe in equality.  That's clear.  When they start engineering equality with affirmative action programs, they're being Lefists.  So there's definitely overlap.  Sometimes they're Liberals; sometimes they're Leftists.  It's inaccurate to describe Leftists as equivalent to Liberals, but it's equally inaccurate to say they're not related.

My main objection is to people redefining and deliberately obfuscating such terms for the sole purpose of pretending they, or their perceived "opponents" are something they're not.  Because that's dishonest.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you could make such a claim, we'd first have to agree on a definition of 'modern liberalism'. And if this thread has shown, if nothing else, just how difficult that can be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the philosophy and political movement of the American democratic party and their fellow travelers in the Green, American Communist, Socialist, and Peace & Freedom parties.
Click to expand...


But can we be more specific?   I have teased, cajoled, requested, goaded and begged ANY proponent of modern day American liberalism to give me an example.  They give me vague fuzzy concepts but nothing as specific as in the definitions I posted.

In a nutshell I see modern day liberals holding basic Marxist beliefs that it is necessary for just and righteous purposes that a strong central government take control and redistribute the national wealth which liberals think belongs to and should be shared by the collective.  Modern day liberals do not trust the people to govern themselves and must be governed by a strong central authority to ensure that righteousness shall preval.  Modern day liberals preach a doctrine that it is right and good that the government force the haves to share with the have nots, and that the government require all to accept a society that the liberals see as good, noble, righteous, and just.

It was these kinds of concepts that our classical liberal Founders saw as antithesis to unalienable rights and liberty and sought to free us from.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you could make such a claim, we'd first have to agree on a definition of 'modern liberalism'. And if this thread has shown, if nothing else, just how difficult that can be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the philosophy and political movement of the American democratic party and their fellow travelers in the Green, American Communist, Socialist, and Peace & Freedom parties.
Click to expand...


Not knowing much about P&F, you seem to be lumping all the leftists you can find together and sticking them onto this "modern liberalism" label like some refrigerator magnet.

A damn good reason to reject that psychobabble term as well.  Just leave terms alone.  And btw it's the "Democratic" party; your failure to capitalize a simple proper noun (even when you've capitalized all the others) demonstrates your hopeless bias.  A perfect illustration of this desperate attempt to redefine a perfectly valid school of thought into some kind of monster so you can then eliminate it.  Voilà: dishonesty.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you could make such a claim, we'd first have to agree on a definition of 'modern liberalism'. And if this thread has shown, if nothing else, just how difficult that can be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the philosophy and political movement of the American democratic party and their fellow travelers in the Green, American Communist, Socialist, and Peace & Freedom parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But can we be more specific?   I have teased, cajoled, requested, goaded and begged ANY proponent of modern day American liberalism to give me an example.  They give me vague fuzzy concepts but nothing as specific as in the definitions I posted.
> 
> *In a nutshell I see modern day liberals holding basic Marxist beliefs that it is necessary for just and righteous purposes that a strong central government take control and redistribute the national wealth which liberals think belongs to and should be shared by the collective.  Modern day liberals do not trust the people to govern themselves and must be governed by a strong central authority to ensure that righteousness shall preval.  Modern day liberals preach a doctrine that it is right and good that the government force the haves to share with the have nots, and that the government require all to accept a society that the liberals see as good, noble, righteous, and just.*
> 
> It was these kinds of concepts that our classical liberal Founders saw as antithesis to unalienable rights and liberty and sought to free us from.
Click to expand...


What you've just described in bold above is Leftism, not Liberalism -- and yet you want to hang the name "liberal" on it.

_That _is what I mean by "dishonest".  And as long as you keep that up and refuse to consider any other view than your own, we'll get nowhere with this definition.  And all of your protests of "I have begged, pleaded, cajoled" etc ring hollow when you choose to ignore the answers.  It just keeps us in rhetorical gridlock.

Oh well.  I tried.  You can only lead the horse to water.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you could make such a claim, we'd first have to agree on a definition of 'modern liberalism'. And if this thread has shown, if nothing else, just how difficult that can be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the philosophy and political movement of the American democratic party and their fellow travelers in the Green, American Communist, Socialist, and Peace & Freedom parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not knowing much about P&F, you seem to be lumping all the leftists you can find together and sticking them onto this "modern liberalism" label like some refrigerator magnet.
> 
> A damn good reason to reject that psychobabble term as well.  Just leave terms alone.
Click to expand...


I won't leave the terms alone because I am sick of the leftists in this country whittling away at our liberties, our freedoms, our choices, and our opportunities.  In my opinion, refusing to define the terms is just one more way to avoid dealing with the creep of authoritarian government and the dissolution of the concepts the Founders gave us that produced the greatest nation the world has ever known.

When you refuse to define the terms, you refuse to deal with the problems that exist due to leftism/liberalism/statism/political class.

If you honestly think there are differences between these terms -- leftist, liberal, statist, political class -  then why won't you define them or specify what the differences are rather than refuse to consider that your definition of 'liberalism' is quite different from 'classical liberalism' as it has been defined?   You won't even accept that there is a difference between modern American liberal and classical liberal but insist there is a difference between leftist and modern American liberal?  Please enlighten us what those differences are between a leftist and modern American liberal.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the philosophy and political movement of the American democratic party and their fellow travelers in the Green, American Communist, Socialist, and Peace & Freedom parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But can we be more specific?   I have teased, cajoled, requested, goaded and begged ANY proponent of modern day American liberalism to give me an example.  They give me vague fuzzy concepts but nothing as specific as in the definitions I posted.
> 
> *In a nutshell I see modern day liberals holding basic Marxist beliefs that it is necessary for just and righteous purposes that a strong central government take control and redistribute the national wealth which liberals think belongs to and should be shared by the collective.  Modern day liberals do not trust the people to govern themselves and must be governed by a strong central authority to ensure that righteousness shall preval.  Modern day liberals preach a doctrine that it is right and good that the government force the haves to share with the have nots, and that the government require all to accept a society that the liberals see as good, noble, righteous, and just.*
> 
> It was these kinds of concepts that our classical liberal Founders saw as antithesis to unalienable rights and liberty and sought to free us from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you've just described in bold above is Leftism, not Liberalism -- and yet you want to hang the name "liberal" on it.
> 
> _That _is what I mean by "dishonest".  And as long as you keep that up and refuse to consider any other view than your own, we'll get nowhere with this definition.  And all of your protests of "I have begged, pleaded, cajoled" etc ring hollow when you choose to ignore the answers.  It just keeps us in rhetorical gridlock.
> 
> Oh well.  I tried.  You can only lead the horse to water.
Click to expand...


What I have descxribed is both leftism AND modern Ameican liberalism which is the polar opposite of 17th and 18th century and 19th century liberalism.  You won't read the definitions that I provided from four separate reliable sources though, speaking of leading a horse to water. . . .

But please provide your own definition of liberalism and how it differs from leftism.  And we'll see if your definition reflects the modern day liberals in America or is closer to the classical liberalism embraced by our Founders..

Again, liberal in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, in its simplest concept was this:

&#9726;an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,

&#9726;the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,

&#9726;the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and

&#9726;the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions. 

Do you agree with that definition?


----------



## Spoonman

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do think we often fail to appreciate how much classical liberalism and modern liberalism have in common.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't appreciate it it because I don't think classical liberalism and modern American liberalism have ANYTHING in common.  Modern American liberalism is as antithesis to classical liberalism as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FALSE. Conservatism is the antithesis of any form of liberalism. You are a Marketist, the siamese twin of a Marxist.
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan
> 
> Here is one of the patron saints of libertarians...
> 
> Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek
> 
> In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.
> 
> When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.
> 
> To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.
> 
> It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.
> 
> In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.
> 
> Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.
Click to expand...


so if liberals assume people are all equal,  why things like affirmative action, entitlements, special assistance given to a limited class of people?  If we're all equal why not equal treatment and expectations of everyone?   When will you guys start walking the talk?


----------



## Spoonman

dblack said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you call "modern liberalism" is simply leftism. it is authoritarian and collectivist - the polar opposite of "liberal."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you could make such a claim, we'd first have to agree on a definition of 'modern liberalism'. And if this thread has shown, if nothing else, just how difficult that can be.
Click to expand...


i can sum it up in one word.  Insanity

Liberal philosophies do not work.  Since the 1960's, this country has been becoming more and more liberal.  Are we in a better place then we were 50 years ago?


----------



## Foxfyre

Spoonman said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't appreciate it it because I don't think classical liberalism and modern American liberalism have ANYTHING in common.  Modern American liberalism is as antithesis to classical liberalism as it gets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE. Conservatism is the antithesis of any form of liberalism. You are a Marketist, the siamese twin of a Marxist.
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan
> 
> Here is one of the patron saints of libertarians...
> 
> Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek
> 
> In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.
> 
> When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.
> 
> To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.
> 
> It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.
> 
> In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.
> 
> Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so if liberals assume people are all equal,  why things like affirmative action, entitlements, special assistance given to a limited class of people?  If we're all equal why not equal treatment and expectations of everyone?   When will you guys start walking the talk?
Click to expand...


They can't/won't even define the terms.  They just sit there typing out objections to any concept put before them that doesn't fit the model of modern American liberalism that they 'feel' but cannot define.

And you want them to walk and talk at the same time?  Just teasing a bit.  It is frustrating though to try to have a conversation or discussion with people who reject every definition put before them but refuse to offer one they consider to be more correct.

And even more frustrating to try to have a conversation with people who are incapable of grasping or understanding concepts and only know how to insult, accuse, blame, criticize, and point fingers at real or presumed sins of others, past and present.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But can we be more specific?   I have teased, cajoled, requested, goaded and begged ANY proponent of modern day American liberalism to give me an example.  They give me vague fuzzy concepts but nothing as specific as in the definitions I posted.
> 
> *In a nutshell I see modern day liberals holding basic Marxist beliefs that it is necessary for just and righteous purposes that a strong central government take control and redistribute the national wealth which liberals think belongs to and should be shared by the collective.  Modern day liberals do not trust the people to govern themselves and must be governed by a strong central authority to ensure that righteousness shall preval.  Modern day liberals preach a doctrine that it is right and good that the government force the haves to share with the have nots, and that the government require all to accept a society that the liberals see as good, noble, righteous, and just.*
> 
> It was these kinds of concepts that our classical liberal Founders saw as antithesis to unalienable rights and liberty and sought to free us from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you've just described in bold above is Leftism, not Liberalism -- and yet you want to hang the name "liberal" on it.
> 
> _That _is what I mean by "dishonest".  And as long as you keep that up and refuse to consider any other view than your own, we'll get nowhere with this definition.  And all of your protests of "I have begged, pleaded, cajoled" etc ring hollow when you choose to ignore the answers.  It just keeps us in rhetorical gridlock.
> 
> Oh well.  I tried.  You can only lead the horse to water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I have descxribed is both leftism AND modern Ameican liberalism which is the polar opposite of 17th and 18th century and 19th century liberalism.  You won't read the definitions that I provided from four separate reliable sources though, speaking of leading a horse to water. . . .
Click to expand...


NO, what you've described is apples which you insist on calling "oranges". 

It's the equivalent of calling your cat a "dog" and then demanding to know why your dog is purring.  Because it's a *cat*, that's why.  So stop calling it a "dog".  



Foxfyre said:


> But please provide your own definition of liberalism and how it differs from leftism.  And we'll see if your definition reflects the modern day liberals in America or is closer to the classical liberalism embraced by our Founders..



_I've done that since I got to this thread_.  You've chosen to ignore it because it's not what you want to hear.  I even outlined why those that push this fake term do so, also to deaf ears.  Every time you get the answer you claim to seek, you come back with "they won't define it".  It's like trying to debate Pee Wee Fricking Herman.

I'm retiring from that silly cat-and-mouse game.  Foxy I love ya but one thing you are _not _is a good listener.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you've just described in bold above is Leftism, not Liberalism -- and yet you want to hang the name "liberal" on it.
> 
> _That _is what I mean by "dishonest".  And as long as you keep that up and refuse to consider any other view than your own, we'll get nowhere with this definition.  And all of your protests of "I have begged, pleaded, cajoled" etc ring hollow when you choose to ignore the answers.  It just keeps us in rhetorical gridlock.
> 
> Oh well.  I tried.  You can only lead the horse to water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I have descxribed is both leftism AND modern Ameican liberalism which is the polar opposite of 17th and 18th century and 19th century liberalism.  You won't read the definitions that I provided from four separate reliable sources though, speaking of leading a horse to water. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, what you've described is apples which you insist on calling "oranges".
> 
> It's the equivalent of calling your cat a "dog" and then demanding to know why your dog is purring.  Because it's a *cat*, that's why.  So stop calling it a "dog".
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But please provide your own definition of liberalism and how it differs from leftism.  And we'll see if your definition reflects the modern day liberals in America or is closer to the classical liberalism embraced by our Founders..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _I've done that since I got to this thread_.  You've chosen to ignore it because it's not what you want to hear.  I even outlined why those that push this fake term do so, also to deaf ears.
> 
> I'm retiring from that silly cat-and-mouse game.  Foxy I love ya but one thing you are _not _is a good listener.
Click to expand...


Sorry.  All you have provided are vague generalities and objections to the definitions I have provided.  I am a sinner and fall short in many things, but one thing I am is a good listener, trained professionally to be by the way.   If you have provided a definition of what you think liberalism is, you should have no problem linking to it.   It is possible I missed a post somewhere, but  I would bet a steak dinner that you can't do that though.


----------



## Pogo

Spoonman said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you call "modern liberalism" is simply leftism. it is authoritarian and collectivist - the polar opposite of "liberal."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you could make such a claim, we'd first have to agree on a definition of 'modern liberalism'. And if this thread has shown, if nothing else, just how difficult that can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i can sum it up in one word.  Insanity
> 
> Liberal philosophies do not work.  Since the 1960's, this country has been becoming more and more liberal.  Are we in a better place then we were 50 years ago?
Click to expand...


Thank you.  This ^^ kind of ignorance is the price of wading around in the terminological Bullshit River.

Be proud.


----------



## Foxfyre

Foxfyre said:


> At least two of the previously posted definitions illustrate the distinct differences between classical liberalism and the modern American social liberalism in the present day.
> 
> Do any of our members who describe themselves as 'liberal' support any of these classical liberal concepts?
> 
> &#9726;an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,
> 
> &#9726;the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,
> 
> &#9726;the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and
> 
> &#9726;the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.



Asking the above question yet again.  Somebody?  Anybody?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> I wouldn't say "nothing at all", but yes it is unproductive to conflate the terms.
> 
> Again, when (e.g.) Democrats oppose laws restricting who can get married and such, they *are *being Liberals who believe in equality.  That's clear.  When they start engineering equality with affirmative action programs, they're being Lefists.  So there's definitely overlap.  Sometimes they're Liberals; sometimes they're Leftists.  It's inaccurate to describe Leftists as equivalent to Liberals, but it's equally inaccurate to say they're not related.
> 
> My main objection is to people redefining and deliberately obfuscating such terms for the sole purpose of pretending they, or their perceived "opponents" are something they're not.  Because that's dishonest.



I disagree, I see them pandering to special interest groups, rather than supporting any sort of equality.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I have descxribed is both leftism AND modern Ameican liberalism which is the polar opposite of 17th and 18th century and 19th century liberalism.  You won't read the definitions that I provided from four separate reliable sources though, speaking of leading a horse to water. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, what you've described is apples which you insist on calling "oranges".
> 
> It's the equivalent of calling your cat a "dog" and then demanding to know why your dog is purring.  Because it's a *cat*, that's why.  So stop calling it a "dog".
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But please provide your own definition of liberalism and how it differs from leftism.  And we'll see if your definition reflects the modern day liberals in America or is closer to the classical liberalism embraced by our Founders..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _I've done that since I got to this thread_.  You've chosen to ignore it because it's not what you want to hear.  I even outlined why those that push this fake term do so, also to deaf ears.
> 
> I'm retiring from that silly cat-and-mouse game.  Foxy I love ya but one thing you are _not _is a good listener.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry.  All you have provided are vague generalities and objections to the definitions I have provided.  I am a sinner and fall short in many things, but one thing I am is a good listener, trained professionally to be by the way.   If you have provided a definition of what you think liberalism is, you should have no problem linking to it.   I would bet a steak dinner that you can't though.
Click to expand...


Easy for you to say since you know I don't eat cow.  And your "training" seems not to have stuck.  But again, all those posts I put in this thread don't go away just because you put duct tape over them and pretend not to see them and then go "where is it".

Posts like... 1486...
1513...
Various little supplements like 1524...

- I'm not posting these all over again just so you can go "where is it".
I'm sorry, there's just no point in putting up eye charts for the blind.  You're wasting my time doing that.  It's damned childish.

Want an outside link?
Redefining the Political Spectrum

I've posted that before and never got feedback at all.  Prolly because it's thirty pages long, but I don't believe these things _have _short, facile, sound bite answers and I don't believe in swallowing "new and improved" definitions just because some talk radio demagogue tells me to.  So if you're up for a 30-page read, voilà.  I wouldn't say I agree completely with that thing but it does at least give a good historical background.  And I always prefer the historical to the hysterical.

Maybe that's just me.


----------



## Foxfyre

In fairness to Pogo, and I did mean to mention it earlier, amongst all his denial screed, he did include this one line which is the closest anybody yet has come to the definition of liberalism:

From his post #1513:
""Liberalism" means, meant, and will continue to mean, a 'laissez-faire' attitude, that government is like a referee, just there to ensure the playing field is level for the populace to act out its own interests unencumbered by government."

That is what the dictionary definition suggests and what classical liberalism is.   It is NOT, however, what modern American liberalism has become.

Modern American liberalism, as manifested by those who descxribe themselves as liberals and in the 20th and 21st centuries, includes nothing laizzez-faire, in fact condemns laizzez-faire concepts.  The modern day American liberal does not see government as just a referee to prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other while we live our lives as we choose,  but as the agent to create the society the liberal wants the society to be.

So we have the federal government involved in school lunches and other aspects of mandatory education, who has taken control of our healthcare system, who takes from one citizen and gives it to another, who would put the entire force of the federal government to attack or persecute a citizen who doesn't toe the poltically correct line or when it can be used for political gain.

Are there any liberals in America who oppose federal involvement in education, who oppose federal redistribution of wealth, who oppose Obamacare, who oppose federal prosecution of George Zimmerman?  These are just a few examples of things that a classical liberal condemns.   Most modern day American liberals do not.


----------



## Pogo

Spoonman said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't appreciate it it because I don't think classical liberalism and modern American liberalism have ANYTHING in common.  Modern American liberalism is as antithesis to classical liberalism as it gets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE. Conservatism is the antithesis of any form of liberalism. You are a Marketist, the siamese twin of a Marxist.
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan
> 
> Here is one of the patron saints of libertarians...
> 
> Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek
> 
> In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.
> 
> When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.
> 
> To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.
> 
> It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.
> 
> In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.
> 
> Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so if liberals assume people are all equal,  why things like affirmative action, entitlements, special assistance given to a limited class of people?  If we're all equal why not equal treatment and expectations of everyone?   When will you guys start walking the talk?
Click to expand...


Because those are Leftist concepts, not Liberal ones.

That's why I keep saying, stop calling your Ford a Chevy and then wondering why the Chevy dealer doesn't have the parts.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> In fairness to Pogo, and I did mean to mention it earlier, amongst all his denial screed, he did include this one line which is the closest anybody yet has come to the definition of liberalism:
> 
> From his post #1513:
> ""Liberalism" means, meant, and will continue to mean, a 'laissez-faire' attitude, that government is like a referee, just there to ensure the playing field is level for the populace to act out its own interests unencumbered by government."
> 
> That is what the dictionary definition suggests and what classical liberalism is.   It is NOT, however, what modern American liberalism has become.
> 
> Modern American liberalism, *as manifested by those who descxribe themselves as liberals* and in the 20th and 21st centuries, includes nothing laizzez-faire, in fact condemns laizzez-faire concepts.  The modern day American liberal does not see government as just a referee to prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other while we live our lives as we choose,  but as the agent to create the society the liberal wants the society to be.
> 
> So we have the federal government involved in school lunches and other aspects of mandatory education, who has taken control of our healthcare system, who takes from one citizen and gives it to another, who would put the entire force of the federal government to attack or persecute a citizen who doesn't toe the poltically correct line or when it can be used for political gain.
> 
> Are there any liberals in America who oppose federal involvement in education, who oppose federal redistribution of wealth, who oppose Obamacare, who oppose federal prosecution of George Zimmerman?  These are just a few examples of things that a classical liberal condemns.   Most modern day American liberals do not.



Once AGAIN, and somebody else already made this point, just because somebody calls him/herself a "liberal" (or a conservative or an Irishman or a kumquat) doesn't make it so.

Is the Democratic Republic of Korea "democratic"?
Was the Democratic Republic of Congo?  How 'bout the German Democratic Republic?
Are the Pennsylvania Dutch "Dutch"?
Are there really ten thousand members of the band 10,000 Maniacs?
Were the Nashville Teens from Nashville?  Or Tennessee?  Or even North America?
Are there any grapes in Grape Nuts?  Any nuts?
Finally -- have you never heard a politician euphemize something to reach a desired effect, even if it wasn't true?  Really??

      ​


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE. Conservatism is the antithesis of any form of liberalism. You are a Marketist, the siamese twin of a Marxist.
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan
> 
> Here is one of the patron saints of libertarians...
> 
> Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek
> 
> In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.
> 
> When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.
> 
> To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.
> 
> It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.
> 
> In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.
> 
> Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so if liberals assume people are all equal,  why things like affirmative action, entitlements, special assistance given to a limited class of people?  If we're all equal why not equal treatment and expectations of everyone?   When will you guys start walking the talk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because those are Leftist concepts, not Liberal ones.
> 
> That's why I keep saying, stop calling your Ford a Chevy and then wondering why the Chevy dealer doesn't have the parts.
Click to expand...


Pogo, the very site you linked makes my argument for me that language changes; the values and definitions people put on words changes.  That understanding of the term 'liberal' in the mid to late 20th Century bears little resemblance to the understanding of the tem in the 17th, 18th, 19th, and early 20th century.   Did you bother to read what is there?   There is a lot of academic nonsense for sure, but the core concept is how we view our world and the words we use to define it.

But one more time:  Do you agree with the following concepts all right out of the 17th century 'liberal' playbook?  And do you honestly think that Americans who defne themselves as liberals today embrace these concepts?

&#9726;an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,

&#9726;the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,

&#9726;the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and

&#9726;the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.


----------



## Pogo

Actually, what it says right at the top is, and I quote:

>> *One of the major problems in American political consciousness today comes from a misrepresentation of the political spectrum*. This is partly the result of a deliberate effort to put all of America's enemies (fascists and communists) into the same basket after World War II, and a deliberate effort by the American "Right" to classify everything that they oppose as "Leftist". After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Red," thereby associating "Liberalism" with "Socialism". It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers", a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics.

... *One of the first things that has to be done in order to properly understand the full spectrum of political ideas is to correct the popular misconception of the term "liberal" in America*.

Page ONE, Foxy.  Page ONE.  At the TOP.

I can't go on with this denialism.  I'll leave it there.  Exit, stage left...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> But can we be more specific?   I have teased, cajoled, requested, goaded and begged ANY proponent of modern day American liberalism to give me an example.  They give me vague fuzzy concepts but nothing as specific as in the definitions I posted.
> 
> In a nutshell I see modern day liberals holding basic Marxist beliefs that it is necessary for just and righteous purposes that a strong central government take control and redistribute the national wealth which liberals think belongs to and should be shared by the collective.  Modern day liberals do not trust the people to govern themselves and must be governed by a strong central authority to ensure that righteousness shall preval.  Modern day liberals preach a doctrine that it is right and good that the government force the haves to share with the have nots, and that the government require all to accept a society that the liberals see as good, noble, righteous, and just.
> 
> It was these kinds of concepts that our classical liberal Founders saw as antithesis to unalienable rights and liberty and sought to free us from.



I generally agree, but the modern left has more in common with Mussolini than with Marx. I've written on this extensively in other threads. Most of the American left has abandoned the quest for a "proletariat controlled" system of distribution, and have instead adopted support of allocation of resources by an elite conglomerate of corporate and government leaders. The modern left doesn't seek to openly nationalize business, look at GM, rather they seek a merger of the power structure of corporations with the government, as an economical way to facilitate central planning.

The goal of pooling resources and the state determining the needs of people is still there. as is the use of coercion to force the population to comply with central planning goals. Obamacare is an example, instead of doctors becoming agents of the state directly, as they are in Cuba or China, they instead are herded over to Blue Cross or Kaiser, which are virtual adjuncts of the federal government.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Actually, what it says right at the top is, and I quote:
> 
> >> *One of the major problems in American political consciousness today comes from a misrepresentation of the political spectrum*. This is partly the result of a deliberate effort to put all of America's enemies (fascists and communists) into the same basket after World War II, and a deliberate effort by the American "Right" to classify everything that they oppose as "Leftist". After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Red," thereby associating "Liberalism" with "Socialism". It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers", a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics.
> 
> ... *One of the first things that has to be done in order to properly understand the full spectrum of political ideas is to correct the popular misconception of the term "liberal" in America*.
> 
> Page ONE, Foxy.  Page ONE.  At the TOP.
> 
> I can't go on with this denialism.  I'll leave it there.  Exit, stage left...



But neither the article nor you have corrected it when you refuse to see what is the reality in the modern American culture.  The fact IS that the modern American liberal--you know you and those guys who describe themselves as liberals--or sometimes the more socially acceptable term of 'progressives'--do NOT embrace the definition of 'liberal' that you or the article has provided.

And that is the truth whether you wish to accept it or not.

And that is why you or any other liberals posting in this thread won't even acknowledge, much less answer my simple question of whether you do or do not agree with the following concepts as the definition of 'liberalism':

&#9726;an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,

&#9726;the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,

&#9726;the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and

&#9726;the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions. 

If you DO agree with them, then you agree that there is no justification or constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education, healthcare, welfare, automobile bailouts, income redistribution, contraceptives, abortion, progressive tax code, marriage laws, or any other concepts of that sort.   The federal government WOULD have authority to ensure that nobody was denied the ability to choose to participate in society as everybody else does as that would be a matter of recognizing and protecting unalienable rights.

If you don't agree with that then you are a modern American liberal, very different from the defintion you provided.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what it says right at the top is, and I quote:
> 
> >> *One of the major problems in American political consciousness today comes from a misrepresentation of the political spectrum*. This is partly the result of a deliberate effort to put all of America's enemies (fascists and communists) into the same basket after World War II, and a deliberate effort by the American "Right" to classify everything that they oppose as "Leftist". After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Red," thereby associating "Liberalism" with "Socialism". It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers", a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics.
> 
> ... *One of the first things that has to be done in order to properly understand the full spectrum of political ideas is to correct the popular misconception of the term "liberal" in America*.
> 
> Page ONE, Foxy.  Page ONE.  At the TOP.
> 
> I can't go on with this denialism.  I'll leave it there.  Exit, stage left...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But neither the article nor you have corrected it when you refuse to see what is the reality in the modern American culture.  The fact IS that the modern American liberal--you know you and those guys who describe themselves as liberals--or sometimes the more socially acceptable term of 'progressives'--do NOT embrace the definition of 'liberal' that you or the article has provided.
> 
> And that is the truth whether you wish to accept it or not.
> 
> And that is why you or any other liberals posting in this thread won't even acknowledge, much less answer my simple question of whether you do or do not agree with the following concepts as the definition of 'liberalism':
> 
> &#9726;an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,
> 
> &#9726;the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,
> 
> &#9726;the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and
> 
> &#9726;the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.
> 
> If you DO agree with them, then you agree that there is no justification or constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education, healthcare, welfare, automobile bailouts, income redistribution, contraceptives, abortion, progressive tax code, marriage laws, or any other concepts of that sort.   The federal government WOULD have authority to ensure that nobody was denied the ability to choose to participate in society as everybody else does as that would be a matter of recognizing and protecting unalienable rights.
> 
> If you don't agree with that then you are a modern American liberal, very different from the defintion you provided.
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree with those points, though not necessarily with what you think follows as conclusions (see image below), and no, I've never called myself a "modern American liberal", or for that matter any other label.  I am, have been, and will continue to be vehemently anti-label.  Labels are intellectual crutches for the intellectually lame.

Suffice to say this entire fallacy can be represented in a single image:





I won't be back until y'all quit buying that guy drinks.


----------



## Foxfyre

Yeah yeah, Pogo.  How many grand exits have you made from this thread already?  LOL.    I disagree that labels are intellectual crutches, however.  And you use them too just as the rest of us do who don't want to have to write seven paragraphs describing something everytime we wish to mention a particular ideology or mindset.   It is why cities have names instead of being described by their longitude and latitude.  It is why automobiles are described as Fords and Chevys because it is so much simpler to identify them that way than having to describe the whole vehicle every time you mention one.

So okay you agree with those concepts which you yourself have described as a laizzez-faire system?  So it is safe to assume that you do oppose federal government involvement in education, healthcare, welfare, automobile bailouts, income redistribution, contraceptives, abortion, progressive tax code, marriage laws, or any other concepts of that sort?


----------



## Foxfyre

Out of personal curiosity, how many of those reading in who think of themselves as conservative or libertarian or classical liberal agree with the following:

The 17th century liberal aka classical liberal promoted:

&#9726;an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,

&#9726;the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,

&#9726;the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and

&#9726;the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions. 

If you embrace these concepts, you agree that there is no justification or constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education, healthcare, welfare, automobile bailouts, income redistribution, contraceptives, abortion, progressive tax code, marriage laws, or any other concepts of that sort. The federal government WOULD have authority to ensure that nobody was denied the ability to choose to participate in society as everybody else does as that would be a matter of recognizing and protecting unalienable rights.


----------



## numan

Foxfyre said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> A principle based on truth does not change whether it applies in the 18th, 19th, 20th, or 21st centuries.
> 
> If unalienable God given rights existed in the 18th Century, it is absurd to think that they do not exist in the 21st century.
> 
> If infringement of unalienable rights were detrimental to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the 18th Century, it is absurd to think that the same would not be the case in the 21st Century.
> 
> 
> 
> And what does this tossing around of idle abstractions have to do with the Constitution of the United States -- even assuming that they were anything more than blither?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For me they are not idle abstractions.  They are fundamental principles by which we all should measure the policies and regulations that are imposed upon the people.
Click to expand...

Well, whatever they are for you, they are just idle abstractions. 

They have nothing to do with the way politics and society really function in the United States.
.


----------



## peach174

numan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what does this tossing around of idle abstractions have to do with the Constitution of the United States -- even assuming that they were anything more than blither?
> 
> 
> 
> For me they are not idle abstractions.  They are fundamental principles by which we all should measure the policies and regulations that are imposed upon the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, whatever they are for you, they are just idle abstractions.
> 
> They have nothing to do with the way politics and society really function in the United States.
> .
Click to expand...



That is really some messed up thinking Numan.
It has everything to do with the way we run our Government and Society.

Why don't you want every American to have a right to life, to not be killed for their political or any other opinions, like so many other Governments have done?

Why would you not want all Americans to have the right to Freedom (liberty) from a Government that would give you no freedom?

Without the former two there is no happiness for anyone.
Why would you want everyone in America to be miserable?


----------



## Foxfyre

numan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what does this tossing around of idle abstractions have to do with the Constitution of the United States -- even assuming that they were anything more than blither?
> 
> 
> 
> For me they are not idle abstractions.  They are fundamental principles by which we all should measure the policies and regulations that are imposed upon the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, whatever they are for you, they are just idle abstractions.
> 
> They have nothing to do with the way politics and society really function in the United States.
> .
Click to expand...


Idle abstractions as in Post #1548?

So many people are willing to discuss things in terms of good or bad, virtue or evil, greedy or compassionate, etc. and assign such adjectives to those they reference whether it be a person, entity, group, or demographic.

But few are capable of or willing to discuss a concept and measure their values and policy decisions against that concept.

Do you consider the concepts in Post #1548 just above you there as idle abstractions?  Can you answer that question?

I'm a bit disappointed in my fellow modern conservatives/libertarians/classical liberals who so far have produced crickets on that too.

If we can't have the discussion even among those who do understand it, how can we ever hope to educate those who don't?


----------



## RKMBrown

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Funny post.  If you really want to know, you have to study what liberals are about. I suggest starting with Rules for Radicals, by Alinsky (Obama and Hillary's fav author)


----------



## thanatos144

Spoonman said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you call "modern liberalism" is simply leftism. it is authoritarian and collectivist - the polar opposite of "liberal."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you could make such a claim, we'd first have to agree on a definition of 'modern liberalism'. And if this thread has shown, if nothing else, just how difficult that can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i can sum it up in one word.  Insanity
> 
> Liberal philosophies do not work.  Since the 1960's, this country has been becoming more and more liberal.  Are we in a better place then we were 50 years ago?
Click to expand...


He wants you to make a distinction so his liberaltarian values are not seen as they are.... Liberalism that hates taxes...


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE. Conservatism is the antithesis of any form of liberalism. You are a Marketist, the siamese twin of a Marxist.
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan
> 
> Here is one of the patron saints of libertarians...
> 
> Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek
> 
> In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.
> 
> When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.
> 
> To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.
> 
> It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.
> 
> In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.
> 
> Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so if liberals assume people are all equal,  why things like affirmative action, entitlements, special assistance given to a limited class of people?  If we're all equal why not equal treatment and expectations of everyone?   When will you guys start walking the talk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can't/won't even define the terms.  They just sit there typing out objections to any concept put before them that doesn't fit the model of modern American liberalism that they 'feel' but cannot define.
> 
> And you want them to walk and talk at the same time?  Just teasing a bit.  It is frustrating though to try to have a conversation or discussion with people who reject every definition put before them but refuse to offer one they consider to be more correct.
> 
> And even more frustrating to try to have a conversation with people who are incapable of grasping or understanding concepts and only know how to insult, accuse, blame, criticize, and point fingers at real or presumed sins of others, past and present.
Click to expand...


I am really getting sick of your bullshit. You deride, belittle, malign, slander, and put down modern liberals in you 'supposed' conversational posts. And when someone does give you a definition of liberalism, you have instant amnesia.

I would say that the definition of social liberalism is a fair description. It is NOT Marxism. It is centrist. Modern liberals have very similar beliefs to what you claim to be your beliefs. But WHERE we disagree is to what degree of government is necessary to ensure our freedoms and liberties.

What is social liberalism?. Also known as Modern liberalism, it is the belief of having social justice included on this ideology. It believes that the legitimate role of the state includes: Unemployment, health care, addressing economic and education. Social liberalism views the good of the community as harmonious with the freedom of all individuals. *This ideology parties and ideas tend to be considered centre left or centrist.* Centrism also known as centre left is the practice or ideal to promote policies which stands different from the standard political right and political left. This ideal tends to focus on policies such as: Human rights, civil liberties; social and economic liberalism.


----------



## numan

'

Don't get into a snit about the babbling of idiots.

.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Foxfyre said:


> Out of personal curiosity, how many of those reading in who think of themselves as conservative or libertarian or classical liberal agree with the following:
> 
> The 17th century liberal aka classical liberal promoted:
> 
> &#9726;an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,
> 
> &#9726;the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,
> 
> &#9726;the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and
> 
> &#9726;the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.
> 
> If you embrace these concepts, you agree that there is no justification or constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education, healthcare, welfare, automobile bailouts, income redistribution, contraceptives, abortion, progressive tax code, marriage laws, or any other concepts of that sort. The federal government WOULD have authority to ensure that nobody was denied the ability to choose to participate in society as everybody else does as that would be a matter of recognizing and protecting unalienable rights.



While I agree with the principles, we also have a very changed and urbanized society compare to the 18th century. We need an economic safety net to moderate extremist influence and to provide for the general welfare, which Congress put into law as it is authorized to do in the preamble.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,* insure domestic Tranquility*, provide for the common defence, *promote the general Welfare*, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


----------



## American_Jihad

*Detroit and the Bankruptcy of Liberalism*​
Rich Tucker
July 22, 2013 

Detroit is a showcase for the liberal agenda  and now it is bankrupt. More than 50 years of control by big-government liberals and union bosses have left a once-great American city crippled and deteriorating.

...

Even as Detroit struggles, its state, Michigan, has taken a positive step. In December, it passed a right-to-work law, becoming the 24th state to do so. That will introduce competition and make the state a more attractive place for people to do business, and for employees as well.

Workers in right-to-work states enjoy higher wage growth and, when cost of living is factored into the equation, better compensation than their counterparts in forced unionism states, notes Vincent Vernuccio of the Mackinac Center. And by reducing the power of public-sector unions, the move should help the state and local governments reduce the pension promises that eventually dragged Detroit down.

F. Scott Fitzgerald said there are no second acts in life, but Americans of all stripes  blue and red  should hope he was wrong. In order for Detroit to succeed again, however, its leaders must realize why they city has failed.




Detroit Bankruptcy: The Failure of Liberalism


----------



## Foxfyre

JimBowie1958 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Out of personal curiosity, how many of those reading in who think of themselves as conservative or libertarian or classical liberal agree with the following:
> 
> The 17th century liberal aka classical liberal promoted:
> 
> &#9726;an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,
> 
> &#9726;the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,
> 
> &#9726;the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and
> 
> &#9726;the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.
> 
> If you embrace these concepts, you agree that there is no justification or constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education, healthcare, welfare, automobile bailouts, income redistribution, contraceptives, abortion, progressive tax code, marriage laws, or any other concepts of that sort. The federal government WOULD have authority to ensure that nobody was denied the ability to choose to participate in society as everybody else does as that would be a matter of recognizing and protecting unalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree with the principles, we also have a very changed and urbanized society compare to the 18th century. We need an economic safety net to moderate extremist influence and to provide for the general welfare, which Congress put into law as it is authorized to do in the preamble.
> 
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,* insure domestic Tranquility*, provide for the common defence, *promote the general Welfare*, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Click to expand...


A comprehensive reading of the Founding documents however, and the Founders left a wealth of their intentions behind in those documents, show that they, to a man, were of the opinion that the general welfare was policy that  promoted liberty and made it possible for people to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all regardless of political leanings or socioeconomic status.  General welfare referred to all citizens and not any entity, group, demographic, or individual.

In other words, that remains one of the most fundamental principles they intended the Constitution to protect:  a person's property was his unalienable right to have and hold and it must be inviolate.  The Federal government had no authority whatsoever to take a person's property to use for its own benefit or for any other person, group, entity, or demographic.    

Whatever did not benefit all was not the prerogative of the federal government to do..  For example,  post roads that allowed the mail to be delivered to all the citizens, regardless of their rank or circumstances, was a prerogative of the federal government.  A road or bridge for the benefit of one city or county or state was not.


----------



## Bfgrn

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE. Conservatism is the antithesis of any form of liberalism. You are a Marketist, the siamese twin of a Marxist.
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan
> 
> Here is one of the patron saints of libertarians...
> 
> Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek
> 
> In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.
> 
> When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.
> 
> To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.
> 
> It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.
> 
> In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.
> 
> Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so if liberals assume people are all equal,  why things like affirmative action, entitlements, special assistance given to a limited class of people?  If we're all equal why not equal treatment and expectations of everyone?   When will you guys start walking the talk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because those are Leftist concepts, not Liberal ones.
> 
> That's why I keep saying, stop calling your Ford a Chevy and then wondering why the Chevy dealer doesn't have the parts.
Click to expand...


I disagree. What is falsely labeled 'entitlements' is liberal. It is based on being compassionate, human, and pragmatic. 

What is generally referred to as the 'welfare state' is a construct of advanced capitalist economies. 

When Otto Von Bismarck instituted compulsory health insurance in Prussia in 1883. That created a sudden panic on the left. Karl Marx had died weeks before, so the socialist leader August Bebel consulted his friend Friedrich Engels, who insisted that socialists should vote against it, as they did. The first welfare state on earth was created against socialist opposition.

The Forgotten Churchill - The man who stared down Hitler also helped create the modern welfare state


----------



## JimBowie1958

Foxfyre said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Out of personal curiosity, how many of those reading in who think of themselves as conservative or libertarian or classical liberal agree with the following:
> 
> The 17th century liberal aka classical liberal promoted:
> 
> &#9726;an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,
> 
> &#9726;the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,
> 
> &#9726;the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and
> 
> &#9726;the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.
> 
> If you embrace these concepts, you agree that there is no justification or constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education, healthcare, welfare, automobile bailouts, income redistribution, contraceptives, abortion, progressive tax code, marriage laws, or any other concepts of that sort. The federal government WOULD have authority to ensure that nobody was denied the ability to choose to participate in society as everybody else does as that would be a matter of recognizing and protecting unalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree with the principles, we also have a very changed and urbanized society compare to the 18th century. We need an economic safety net to moderate extremist influence and to provide for the general welfare, which Congress put into law as it is authorized to do in the preamble.
> 
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,* insure domestic Tranquility*, provide for the common defence, *promote the general Welfare*, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A comprehensive reading of the Founding documents however, and the Founders left a wealth of their intentions behind in those documents, show that they, to a man, were of the opinion that the general welfare was policy that  promoted liberty and made it possible for people to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all regardless of political leanings or socioeconomic status.  General welfare referred to all citizens and not any entity, group, demographic, or individual.
> 
> In other words, that remains one of the most fundamental principles they intended the Constitution to protect:  a person's property was his unalienable right to have and hold and it must be inviolate.  The Federal government had no authority whatsoever to take a person's property to use for its own benefit or for any other person, group, entity, or demographic.
> 
> Whatever did not benefit all was not the prerogative of the federal government to do..  For example,  post roads that allowed the mail to be delivered to all the citizens, regardless of their rank or circumstances, was a prerogative of the federal government.  A road or bridge for the benefit of one city or county or state was not.
Click to expand...


I agree that in the late 1700s all a person needed was the freedom to go out on the frontier and carve a place for oneself.

In 2013 AD, it is not something one can do on a large permanent scale without risking a lot of jail time. Our social bonds have frayed to the point that few feel any need to care for their fellow citizens, not realizing that that care also has a selfish component. 

Welfare is good for those who pay for it because it stabilizes society and greatly inhibits the spread of disease by keeping the poor healthier but a poor who historically have been malnourished and a plague super-highway due to suppressed immune systems.

Also, a healthier poor demographic group can still buy products if they have some discretionary money available and that helps with unemployment.

What is wrong now is primarily due to graft, corruption and pork funding that gets slipped into almost every bill. Another threat to all of us is the $85 BILLION each month that the Fed gives to banks in the guise of buying worthless toxic mortgage securities.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bfgrn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so if liberals assume people are all equal,  why things like affirmative action, entitlements, special assistance given to a limited class of people?  If we're all equal why not equal treatment and expectations of everyone?   When will you guys start walking the talk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because those are Leftist concepts, not Liberal ones.
> 
> That's why I keep saying, stop calling your Ford a Chevy and then wondering why the Chevy dealer doesn't have the parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. What is falsely labeled 'entitlements' is liberal. It is based on being compassionate, human, and pragmatic.
> 
> What is generally referred to as the 'welfare state' is a construct of advanced capitalist economies.
> 
> When Otto Von Bismarck instituted compulsory health insurance in Prussia in 1883. That created a sudden panic on the left. Karl Marx had died weeks before, so the socialist leader August Bebel consulted his friend Friedrich Engels, who insisted that socialists should vote against it, as they did. The first welfare state on earth was created against socialist opposition.
> 
> The Forgotten Churchill - The man who stared down Hitler also helped create the modern welfare state
Click to expand...


Another forgotten historical tid-bit. Socialism started with Christian communes in the 1700s, but the movement gradually got hijacked by secularists when they saw how popular it was becoming. It was the secularists who shifted socialism from a direct local community structure to a national one in order to steal from it.


----------



## sitarro

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Wilson? Woodrow "the racist" Wilson? JFK would be a Republican today. Clinton had both halves of Congress forcing him to sign the right bills, FDR? Who cares about FDR, why not bring up LBJ, another clueless figure head for war?


----------



## rightwinger

sitarro said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson? Woodrow "the racist" Wilson? JFK would be a Republican today. Clinton had both halves of Congress forcing him to sign the right bills, FDR? Who cares about FDR, why not bring up LBJ, another clueless figure head for war?
Click to expand...


JFK would vomit over todays Republicans


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson? Woodrow "the racist" Wilson? JFK would be a Republican today. Clinton had both halves of Congress forcing him to sign the right bills, FDR? Who cares about FDR, why not bring up LBJ, another clueless figure head for war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JFK would vomit over todays Republicans
Click to expand...

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.  Yeah that statement is only for the rich republicans.  For the democrats that has been replaced with tell us what your country can do for you, belly up to the trough for free money, the drinks are on the house!


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson? Woodrow "the racist" Wilson? JFK would be a Republican today. Clinton had both halves of Congress forcing him to sign the right bills, FDR? Who cares about FDR, why not bring up LBJ, another clueless figure head for war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFK would vomit over todays Republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.  Yeah that statement is only for the rich republicans.  For the democrats that has been replaced with tell us what your country can do for you, belly up to the trough for free money, the drinks are on the house!
Click to expand...


It continues to amaze me how conservatives misrepresent that statement to meet their twisted agenda. "Ask not what your country can do for you" was not a condemnation of social programs but a call for public service. It was used to help launch the Peace Corps

In fact, in his same Inaugural address, JFK spoke of a public obligation to help the poor


----------



## rightwinger

_.   If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people &#8212; their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties &#8212; someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party nomination (14 September 1960) TurnLeft:What is a Liberal?    _



Tell me about how JFK would be a Republican today


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> JFK would vomit over todays Republicans



JFK was good friends with Joseph McCarthy and worked closely with him to root out Communists in the American Government. 

What do you say he would think of Dear Leader? How would he react to you Obamunists?


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK would vomit over todays Republicans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFK was good friends with Joseph McCarthy and worked closely with him to root out Communists in the American Government.
> 
> What do you say he would think of Dear Leader? How would he react to you Obamunists?
Click to expand...


Good friends?   I think not
Bobby did work for the guy though


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Good friends?   I think not
> Bobby did work for the guy though



We know you "think not" and actually have no capacity for thought, merely spewing whatever the hate sites program you with; but that does not alter the fact that Kennedy and McCarthy were friends and allies.

{McCarthy established a bond with the powerful Kennedy family, which had high visibility among Catholics. McCarthy became a close friend of Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., himself a fervent anti-Communist, and was a frequent guest at the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port. He dated two of Kennedy's daughters, Patricia and Eunice,[52][53] and was godfather to Robert F. Kennedy's first child, Kathleen Kennedy. Robert was chosen by McCarthy as a counsel for his investigatory committee, but resigned after six months due to disagreements with McCarthy and Cohn. Joseph Kennedy had a national network of contacts and became a vocal supporter, building McCarthy's popularity among Catholics and making sizable contributions to McCarthy's campaigns.[54] The Kennedy patriarch hoped that one of his sons would be president. Mindful of the anti-Catholic prejudice Al Smith faced during his 1928 campaign for that office, Joseph Kennedy supported McCarthy as a national Catholic politician who might pave the way for a younger Kennedy's presidential candidacy.}


Joseph McCarthy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moron.


----------



## Uncensored2008

So Rightwinger lied to try and obscure this, let me repeat;

JFK was good friends with Joseph McCarthy and worked closely with him to root out Communists in the American Government.

What do you say he would think of Dear Leader? How would he react to you Obamunists?


----------



## numan

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK would vomit over todays Republicans
> 
> 
> 
> Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
Click to expand...

*Ask not what I can do for you, ask rather what you can do for me !*






.


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> So Rightwinger lied to try and obscure this, let me repeat;
> 
> JFK was good friends with Joseph McCarthy and worked closely with him to root out Communists in the American Government.
> 
> What do you say he would think of Dear Leader? How would he react to you Obamunists?



BFD

In the 1950s who didn't?  Being soft on communism was political suicide. 
JFK would have loved Obama, just like most Americans

In fact, Obama just named his daughter Ambassador to Japan


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> _.   If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people &#8212; their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties &#8212; someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
> Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party nomination (14 September 1960) TurnLeft:What is a Liberal?    _
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me about how JFK would be a Republican today



Because the democrat policies of welfare through socialist programs of redistribution have nothing to do with improving the welfare of the people.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _.   If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people  their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties  someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
> Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party nomination (14 September 1960) TurnLeft:What is a Liberal?    _
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me about how JFK would be a Republican today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the democrat policies of welfare through socialist programs of redistribution have nothing to do with improving the welfare of the people you dolt.
Click to expand...


Of course they do

Johnsons Great Society programs were a continuation of JFKs policies and were sold as his legacy

dolt


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> BFD
> 
> In the 1950s who didn't?  Being soft on communism was political suicide.
> JFK would have loved Obama, just like most Americans
> 
> In fact, Obama just named his daughter Ambassador to Japan



ROFL

America's own Josef Goebbels - Edward Murrow was more than just "soft" on Communists, but attacked anyone opposing the Communists with the full propaganda power of the press. 

But beyond the penchant of our current ruler for Marxism, authoritarianism, and internationalism, there is the issue of taxes. 

Kennedy lowered them, Dear Leader jacked them up - on everyone.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Of course they do
> 
> Johnsons Great Society programs were a continuation of JFKs policies and were sold as his legacy
> 
> dolt



So, that must mean that the Johnson programs resulted in less people classified as "poverty," right?


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _.   If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people &#8212; their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties &#8212; someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
> Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party nomination (14 September 1960) TurnLeft:What is a Liberal?    _
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me about how JFK would be a Republican today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the democrat policies of welfare through socialist programs of redistribution have nothing to do with improving the welfare of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they do
> 
> Johnsons Great Society programs were a continuation of JFKs policies and were sold as his legacy
> 
> dolt
Click to expand...


I see so you say give a man a fish so he won't learn to fish for himself.  You say that improves welfare of the people.  

Wrong.

Welfare programs that feed people by forcing them to avoid work to collect the welfare funds are not a means to improve welfare of the people.  They are a means for ENSLAVING the people and degrading the welfare of the people.  

As proof I submit, you as evidence.


----------



## numan

rightwinger said:


> Tell me about how JFK would be a Republican today


Because he was rich and privileged -- and would gain no political advantage by being a Democrat in today's world?

.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the democrat policies of welfare through socialist programs of redistribution have nothing to do with improving the welfare of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do
> 
> Johnsons Great Society programs were a continuation of JFKs policies and were sold as his legacy
> 
> dolt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see so you say give a man a fish so he won't learn to fish for himself.  You say that improves welfare of the people.
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Welfare programs that feed people by forcing them to avoid work to collect the welfare funds are not a means to improve welfare of the people.  They are a means for ENSLAVING the people and degrading the welfare of the people.
> 
> As proof I submit, you as evidence.
Click to expand...


Great Society programs included not only a safety net but education. jobs training and jobs placement

Also Medicaid and Medicare


----------



## numan

rightwinger said:


> JFK would vomit over todays Republicans


He would vomit over today's Democrats, too.

But he would have worked to find compromises with both, to keep the country from being paralysed.


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do
> 
> Johnsons Great Society programs were a continuation of JFKs policies and were sold as his legacy
> 
> dolt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, that must mean that the Johnson programs resulted in less people classified as "poverty," right?
Click to expand...


Millions of Americans have used government programs to escape poverty. There are few formerly poor Americans that did not use at least some of the programs


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do
> 
> Johnsons Great Society programs were a continuation of JFKs policies and were sold as his legacy
> 
> dolt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see so you say give a man a fish so he won't learn to fish for himself.  You say that improves welfare of the people.
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Welfare programs that feed people by forcing them to avoid work to collect the welfare funds are not a means to improve welfare of the people.  They are a means for ENSLAVING the people and degrading the welfare of the people.
> 
> As proof I submit, you as evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great Society programs included not only a safety net but education. jobs training and jobs placement
> 
> Also Medicaid and Medicare
Click to expand...


Show me one instance in history where a socialist system for anything has been successful.  Punishing the successful while rewarding the lazy improves nothing.  It only creates more lazy people.  Even the communists have figured that out and replaced their socialist systems with capitalism.

Great society.  What a laugh.  More like morally bankrupt lazy ass society.

>>> jobs training and jobs placement

Bull shit.  Where can I go to get "jobs placement?"


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do
> 
> Johnsons Great Society programs were a continuation of JFKs policies and were sold as his legacy
> 
> dolt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, that must mean that the Johnson programs resulted in less people classified as "poverty," right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Millions of Americans have used government programs to escape poverty. There are few formerly poor Americans that did not use at least some of the programs
Click to expand...


Bull shit. How did they do that?  How did a government program help one person escape poverty? Everyone I know that escaped poverty did it with their own two hands.  Everyone I know that is in poverty got there with the government's help.


----------



## peach174

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK would vomit over todays Republicans
> 
> 
> 
> Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.  Yeah that statement is only for the rich republicans.  For the democrats that has been replaced with tell us what your country can do for you, belly up to the trough for free money, the drinks are on the house!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It continues to amaze me how conservatives misrepresent that statement to meet their twisted agenda. "Ask not what your country can do for you" was not a condemnation of social programs but a call for public service. It was used to help launch the Peace Corps
> 
> In fact, in his same Inaugural address, JFK spoke of a public obligation to help the poor
Click to expand...



Yes it was a call for the people to do something for the government because the Government had given much to them.
President Kennedy was a Conservative Democrat compared to his brother Ted Kenney who was a liberal.

What is the difference between a Conservative Dem and a Liberal Dem?
Conservative Dems fund the social programs with the money that is already there.
Liberal Dems don't figure in the funding, add more people on the programs and then kick the can down the road. Then they want to fix the funding much later on by very high taxes.

President Kennedy was more like Bush Jr. on taxes.
President Kenney wanted to reduce income taxes from 20-90% to 14-65%
He wanted to reduce the Corp tax from 52% to 47%.
He also said the soundest way to raise revenue in the long term is to lower rates now.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Millions of Americans have used government programs to escape poverty. There are few formerly poor Americans that did not use at least some of the programs



But there is a FAR greater percentage of Americans in poverty today than there were before Johnson's programs.

That's what you socialists call "success." 

If you socialists ever try to "help" with infant mortality, you'll deem "success" as reducing the rate from the current 2% down to 35% - just as you've done with poverty.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, that must mean that the Johnson programs resulted in less people classified as "poverty," right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of Americans have used government programs to escape poverty. There are few formerly poor Americans that did not use at least some of the programs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit. How did they do that?  How did a government program help one person escape poverty? Everyone I know that escaped poverty did it with their own two hands.  Everyone I know that is in poverty got there with the government's help.
Click to expand...


Glad you asked...

Government programs allow people to survive while they are getting back on their feet. Food, Shelter, Healthcare
Government programs also provide education, jobs training, childcare while you work or go to school. job placement services


----------



## RKMBrown

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.  Yeah that statement is only for the rich republicans.  For the democrats that has been replaced with tell us what your country can do for you, belly up to the trough for free money, the drinks are on the house!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It continues to amaze me how conservatives misrepresent that statement to meet their twisted agenda. "Ask not what your country can do for you" was not a condemnation of social programs but a call for public service. It was used to help launch the Peace Corps
> 
> In fact, in his same Inaugural address, JFK spoke of a public obligation to help the poor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was a call for the people to do something for the government because the Government had given much to them.
> President Kennedy was a Conservative Democrat compared to his brother Ted Kenney who was a liberal.
> 
> What is the difference between a Conservative Dem and a Liberal Dem?
> Conservative Dems fund the social programs with the money that is already there.
> Liberal Dems don't figure in the funding, add more people on the programs and then kick the can down the road. Then they want to fix the funding much later on by very high taxes.
> 
> President Kennedy was more like Bush Jr. on taxes.
> President Kenney wanted to reduce income taxes from 20-90% to 14-65%
> He wanted to reduce the Corp tax from 52% to 47%.
> He also said the soundest way to raise revenue in the long term is to lower rates now.
Click to expand...


Not to mention comparing democrat women of today vs Marlyn and Jackie.


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of Americans have used government programs to escape poverty. There are few formerly poor Americans that did not use at least some of the programs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there is a FAR greater percentage of Americans in poverty today than there were before Johnson's programs.
> 
> That's what you socialists call "success."
> 
> If you socialists ever try to "help" with infant mortality, you'll deem "success" as reducing the rate from the current 2% down to 35% - just as you've done with poverty.
Click to expand...


Apples and Oranges

When Johnson was selling his War on Poverty programs he showed reporters families that lived in shacks with no electricity, no running water, outhouses, no heat.....children wearing rags and no shoes

You would be hard pressed to find that standard of poverty today


----------



## Foxfyre

Rightwinger writes:
". If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people &#8212; their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties &#8212; someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

So let's take it a step further.  What does it mean to CARE about the welfare of the people, ie. their health, housing schools, jobs, civil rights, civil liberties?

Does CARING mean that the federal government confiscates property from Citizen A in order to provide healthcare, housing, education, employment to Citizen B?

Does CARING mean that the federal government decides whether Citizen A has a 'right' to defend his person or property when Citizen B threatens either?   That government determines what language is acceptable to use to avoid offending Citizen B?   That government can force Citizen A to hire Citizen B?

If so, then liberal CARING is looking to government authority to create the sort of society wanted.

That is NOT the definition of liberal provided by say the Merriam-Webster dictionary:



> Definition of LIBERAL
> 
> 1.  a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education>
> 
> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
> 
> 2.  a : marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver>
> 
> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal>
> 
> c : ample, full
> 
> 3. obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
> 
> 
> 4.: not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
> 
> 
> 5.  broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
> 
> 
> 6.  a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
> 
> b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.
> Liberal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



In other words, pretty much the basic beliefs of the Founding Fathers.

But based on what we read, see n television, hear on the radio, and note from comments on message boards, the modern day American liberal usually favors:
- Obamacare that effectively controls the national healthcare system.
- Affirmative Action
- OSHA, wage controls, and broad environmental restrictions.
- Enforcement of politically correct language
- Forcibly transferring wealth from the haves to the have nots.
- Federal dictates regarding marriage laws, reproduction, education, school lunches, unions, communications, commerce, and industry.
- Federal dictates of what is acceptable to regulate in the private sector re patriotic displays, guns, artistic symbolism/activities, self defense, etc.
- Use of the people's treasury to punish success and subsidize failure. . . just to name a few issues.

How does ANY of that square with the definition provided by Merriam-Webster?


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Apples and Oranges
> 
> When Johnson was selling his War on Poverty programs he showed reporters families that lived in shacks with no electricity, no running water, outhouses, no heat.....children wearing rags and no shoes
> 
> You would be hard pressed to find that standard of poverty today



So you admit that you Obamunists are openly lying about poverty?


----------



## rightwinger

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.  Yeah that statement is only for the rich republicans.  For the democrats that has been replaced with tell us what your country can do for you, belly up to the trough for free money, the drinks are on the house!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It continues to amaze me how conservatives misrepresent that statement to meet their twisted agenda. "Ask not what your country can do for you" was not a condemnation of social programs but a call for public service. It was used to help launch the Peace Corps
> 
> In fact, in his same Inaugural address, JFK spoke of a public obligation to help the poor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was a call for the people to do something for the government because the Government had given much to them.
> President Kennedy was a Conservative Democrat compared to his brother Ted Kenney who was a liberal.
> 
> What is the difference between a Conservative Dem and a Liberal Dem?
> Conservative Dems fund the social programs with the money that is already there.
> Liberal Dems don't figure in the funding, add more people on the programs and then kick the can down the road. Then they want to fix the funding much later on by very high taxes.
> 
> President Kennedy was more like Bush Jr. on taxes.
> President Kenney wanted to reduce income taxes from 20-90% to 14-65%
> He wanted to reduce the Corp tax from 52% to 47%.
> He also said the soundest way to raise revenue in the long term is to lower rates now.
Click to expand...


I'm sure current Democrats would be content with taxes 14-65%
and corporate rates at 47%

Would that make them Republicans?


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of Americans have used government programs to escape poverty. There are few formerly poor Americans that did not use at least some of the programs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit. How did they do that?  How did a government program help one person escape poverty? Everyone I know that escaped poverty did it with their own two hands.  Everyone I know that is in poverty got there with the government's help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you asked...
> 
> Government programs allow people to survive while they are getting back on their feet. Food, Shelter, Healthcare
> Government programs also provide education, jobs training, childcare while you work or go to school. job placement services
Click to expand...

Since we are talking feds, I'll assume by government you meant federal.

>>> Federal Government programs allow people to survive while they are getting back on their feet. Food, Shelter, Healthcare

So do local food banks, shelters, and free clinics.  Can you explain the difference between federal programs for same and local programs?  From what I can tell the primary difference is federal programs are unlimited in duration and not designed to wean people off assistance, by contrast they are designed to make people permanently dependent.

>>> Federal Government programs also provide education, jobs training, childcare while you work or go to school. job placement services

I can get all of that for free on the internet.  Why do we need hundreds of MASSIVE duplicate federal programs to provide education and jobs training for jobs that are being off-shored?


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit. How did they do that?  How did a government program help one person escape poverty? Everyone I know that escaped poverty did it with their own two hands.  Everyone I know that is in poverty got there with the government's help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you asked...
> 
> Government programs allow people to survive while they are getting back on their feet. Food, Shelter, Healthcare
> Government programs also provide education, jobs training, childcare while you work or go to school. job placement services
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since we are talking feds, I'll assume by government you meant federal.
> 
> >>> Federal Government programs allow people to survive while they are getting back on their feet. Food, Shelter, Healthcare
> 
> So do local food banks, shelters, and free clinics.  Can you explain the difference between federal programs for same and local programs?  From what I can tell the primary difference is federal programs are unlimited in duration and not designed to wean people off assistance, by contrast they are designed to make people permanently dependent.
> 
> >>> Federal Government programs also provide education, jobs training, childcare while you work or go to school. job placement services
> 
> I can get all of that for free on the internet.  Why do we need hundreds of MASSIVE duplicate federal programs to provide education and jobs training for jobs that are being off-shored?
Click to expand...


Why are you guys obsessed with the Feds?

Government is Government is Government

It all comes out of our pocket


----------



## Foxfyre

The federal government is VERY different from the state, county, local government.

When the federal government decides to dictate something to all the people, while paying just enough of the people to keep the government in power, everybody's rights are violated.  And there is nowhere to go to escape whatever oppressive regulation or laws the federal government imposes on us other than to leave our country or stage another revolution.  And if the authoritarianism progresses far enough, we might not even have that option.

But Texas cannot dictate to New Mexico how New Mexico will organize the New Mexican society.  Vermont has no power to tell Florida how it must do things.   Houston cannot dictate to Dallas how it must run its schools.   Our neighborhood association cannot demand that the next neighborhood over go by our rules.

Liberalism in its purest form is the freedom to live our lives and organize our societies as we choose, to utilize or protect our property as we choose, to breath and live and speak and pursue whatever opportunities we choose.

Any federal dictate that interferes with that in any way is not liberalism but is rather authoritarianism cloaked in the mantle called modern American liberalism.


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you asked...
> 
> Government programs allow people to survive while they are getting back on their feet. Food, Shelter, Healthcare
> Government programs also provide education, jobs training, childcare while you work or go to school. job placement services
> 
> 
> 
> Since we are talking feds, I'll assume by government you meant federal.
> 
> >>> Federal Government programs allow people to survive while they are getting back on their feet. Food, Shelter, Healthcare
> 
> So do local food banks, shelters, and free clinics.  Can you explain the difference between federal programs for same and local programs?  From what I can tell the primary difference is federal programs are unlimited in duration and not designed to wean people off assistance, by contrast they are designed to make people permanently dependent.
> 
> >>> Federal Government programs also provide education, jobs training, childcare while you work or go to school. job placement services
> 
> I can get all of that for free on the internet.  Why do we need hundreds of MASSIVE duplicate federal programs to provide education and jobs training for jobs that are being off-shored?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you guys obsessed with the Feds?
> 
> Government is Government is Government
> 
> It all comes out of our pocket
Click to expand...


Wrong. Federal government is based in DC.  State government is based in state capitals.  Local government is based in your county seat and/or city.  The closer you get to home the closer you get to people who do things based on a desire for results. The farther you get from home the closer you get to people who do things based on a desire for wealth and power.  There is no accountability for money spent by the feds.  NONE.  Money spent locally is more often than not money that is looked at more carefully.   I can live in a conservative town in a conservative state and have much better return on my tax dollars than people who live in liberal towns in liberal states.  

What I despise is my hard earned tax dollars being pissed away by idiots in DC voted in by a majority of idiots in democrat inner cities. 

We live in a REPUBLIC.  Social programs should be reserved to the states not forced on us federally.  You want to piss away the economy of this country? Why?

Detroit is a shinning example of where the democrats are attempting to take the entire country.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we are talking feds, I'll assume by government you meant federal.
> 
> >>> Federal Government programs allow people to survive while they are getting back on their feet. Food, Shelter, Healthcare
> 
> So do local food banks, shelters, and free clinics.  Can you explain the difference between federal programs for same and local programs?  From what I can tell the primary difference is federal programs are unlimited in duration and not designed to wean people off assistance, by contrast they are designed to make people permanently dependent.
> 
> >>> Federal Government programs also provide education, jobs training, childcare while you work or go to school. job placement services
> 
> I can get all of that for free on the internet.  Why do we need hundreds of MASSIVE duplicate federal programs to provide education and jobs training for jobs that are being off-shored?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you guys obsessed with the Feds?
> 
> Government is Government is Government
> 
> It all comes out of our pocket
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. Federal government is based in DC.  State government is based in state capitals.  Local government is based in your county seat and/or city.  The closer you get to home the closer you get to people who do things based on a desire for results. The farther you get from home the closer you get to people who do things based on a desire for wealth and power.  There is no accountability for money spent by the feds.  NONE.  Money spent locally is more often than not money that is looked at more carefully.   I can live in a conservative town in a conservative state and have much better return on my tax dollars than people who live in liberal towns in liberal states.
> 
> What I despise is my hard earned tax dollars being pissed away by idiots in DC voted in by a majority of idiots in democrat inner cities.
> 
> We live in a REPUBLIC.  Social programs should be reserved to the states not forced on us federally.  You want to piss away the economy of this country? Why?
> 
> Detroit is a shinning example of where the democrats are attempting to take the entire country.
Click to expand...


No shit Sherlock...

Government is executed at the point it is most efficient. Plowing the road in front of your house is most efficiently done by your local government. Defending the nation is most efficiently done at the federal level.
Many programs are executed at multiple levels. The federal government that you so despise is able to reduce redundancy of 50 states trying to execute the same programs. There are also efficiencies of scale of doing something on a large scale vs thousands of small scale effort


----------



## peach174

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, that must mean that the Johnson programs resulted in less people classified as "poverty," right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of Americans have used government programs to escape poverty. There are few formerly poor Americans that did not use at least some of the programs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit. How did they do that?  How did a government program help one person escape poverty? Everyone I know that escaped poverty did it with their own two hands.  Everyone I know that is in poverty got there with the government's help.
Click to expand...


Exactly !

Before President Johnson welfare program there were 39 million Americans in poverty.
Today there are 43.6 million in poverty.
So much for Johnson war on poverty that was suppose to end it. The program has increased it.

We have 46.6 million on food stamps up by 77% in 5 years.
Government hand outs causes more dependency and does not help to get the poor out of poverty.


----------



## peach174

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It continues to amaze me how conservatives misrepresent that statement to meet their twisted agenda. "Ask not what your country can do for you" was not a condemnation of social programs but a call for public service. It was used to help launch the Peace Corps
> 
> In fact, in his same Inaugural address, JFK spoke of a public obligation to help the poor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was a call for the people to do something for the government because the Government had given much to them.
> President Kennedy was a Conservative Democrat compared to his brother Ted Kenney who was a liberal.
> 
> What is the difference between a Conservative Dem and a Liberal Dem?
> Conservative Dems fund the social programs with the money that is already there.
> Liberal Dems don't figure in the funding, add more people on the programs and then kick the can down the road. Then they want to fix the funding much later on by very high taxes.
> 
> President Kennedy was more like Bush Jr. on taxes.
> President Kennedy wanted to reduce income taxes from 20-90% to 14-65%
> He wanted to reduce the Corp tax from 52% to 47%.
> He also said the soundest way to raise revenue in the long term is to lower rates now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure current Democrats would be content with taxes 14-65%
> and corporate rates at 47%
> 
> Would that make them Republicans?
Click to expand...



You missed the point entirely.


----------



## rightwinger

peach174 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of Americans have used government programs to escape poverty. There are few formerly poor Americans that did not use at least some of the programs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit. How did they do that?  How did a government program help one person escape poverty? Everyone I know that escaped poverty did it with their own two hands.  Everyone I know that is in poverty got there with the government's help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly !
> 
> Before President Johnson welfare program there were 39 million Americans in poverty.
> Today there are 43.6 million in poverty.
> So much for Johnson war on poverty that was suppose to end it. The program has increased it.
> 
> We have 46.6 million on food stamps up by 77% in 5 years.
> Government hand outs causes more dependency and does not help to get the poor out of poverty.
Click to expand...


Did you factor in that we have twice the population we had in 1965?


----------



## rightwinger

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was a call for the people to do something for the government because the Government had given much to them.
> President Kennedy was a Conservative Democrat compared to his brother Ted Kenney who was a liberal.
> 
> What is the difference between a Conservative Dem and a Liberal Dem?
> Conservative Dems fund the social programs with the money that is already there.
> Liberal Dems don't figure in the funding, add more people on the programs and then kick the can down the road. Then they want to fix the funding much later on by very high taxes.
> 
> President Kennedy was more like Bush Jr. on taxes.
> President Kennedy wanted to reduce income taxes from 20-90% to 14-65%
> He wanted to reduce the Corp tax from 52% to 47%.
> He also said the soundest way to raise revenue in the long term is to lower rates now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure current Democrats would be content with taxes 14-65%
> and corporate rates at 47%
> 
> Would that make them Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point entirely.
Click to expand...


No I didn't


----------



## thanatos144

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _.   If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people  their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties  someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
> Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party nomination (14 September 1960) TurnLeft:What is a Liberal?    _
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me about how JFK would be a Republican today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the democrat policies of welfare through socialist programs of redistribution have nothing to do with improving the welfare of the people you dolt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they do
> 
> Johnsons Great Society programs were a continuation of JFKs policies and were sold as his legacy
> 
> dolt
Click to expand...


Both created to keep the blackies in their ghetto slave pens.... Both were racist pigs as well


----------



## thanatos144

numan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me about how JFK would be a Republican today
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was rich and privileged -- and would gain no political advantage by being a Democrat in today's world?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


He would have been another Teddy.


----------



## thanatos144

rightwinger said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of Americans have used government programs to escape poverty. There are few formerly poor Americans that did not use at least some of the programs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there is a FAR greater percentage of Americans in poverty today than there were before Johnson's programs.
> 
> That's what you socialists call "success."
> 
> If you socialists ever try to "help" with infant mortality, you'll deem "success" as reducing the rate from the current 2% down to 35% - just as you've done with poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and Oranges
> 
> When Johnson was selling his War on Poverty programs he showed reporters families that lived in shacks with no electricity, no running water, outhouses, no heat.....children wearing rags and no shoes
> 
> You would be hard pressed to find that standard of poverty today
Click to expand...


Was that before or after he said he would get those ******* voting democrat?


----------



## rightwinger

thanatos144 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there is a FAR greater percentage of Americans in poverty today than there were before Johnson's programs.
> 
> That's what you socialists call "success."
> 
> If you socialists ever try to "help" with infant mortality, you'll deem "success" as reducing the rate from the current 2% down to 35% - just as you've done with poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and Oranges
> 
> When Johnson was selling his War on Poverty programs he showed reporters families that lived in shacks with no electricity, no running water, outhouses, no heat.....children wearing rags and no shoes
> 
> You would be hard pressed to find that standard of poverty today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was that before or after he said he would get those ******* voting democrat?
Click to expand...


link


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and Oranges
> 
> When Johnson was selling his War on Poverty programs he showed reporters families that lived in shacks with no electricity, no running water, outhouses, no heat.....children wearing rags and no shoes
> 
> You would be hard pressed to find that standard of poverty today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that before or after he said he would get those ******* voting democrat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> link
Click to expand...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-of-lbj-and-race-goebbles-would-be-proud.html


----------



## thanatos144

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was a call for the people to do something for the government because the Government had given much to them.
> President Kennedy was a Conservative Democrat compared to his brother Ted Kenney who was a liberal.
> 
> What is the difference between a Conservative Dem and a Liberal Dem?
> Conservative Dems fund the social programs with the money that is already there.
> Liberal Dems don't figure in the funding, add more people on the programs and then kick the can down the road. Then they want to fix the funding much later on by very high taxes.
> 
> President Kennedy was more like Bush Jr. on taxes.
> President Kennedy wanted to reduce income taxes from 20-90% to 14-65%
> He wanted to reduce the Corp tax from 52% to 47%.
> He also said the soundest way to raise revenue in the long term is to lower rates now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure current Democrats would be content with taxes 14-65%
> and corporate rates at 47%
> 
> Would that make them Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point entirely.
Click to expand...

If you adjust for population it is about the same..... So it is even more frustrating cause we paid billions into something that Made no impact....


----------



## Foxfyre

The difference between JFK liberalism and now:

Then
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtLTmg2vCzY]Listening In: JFK Calls about Furniture (July 25, 1963) - YouTube[/ame]

Now
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjFcLqxLrOo]GSA Employees' Spoof Video - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUZTpWEJWU4]IRS Party Caught on Tape: Dancing Away Tax Dollars - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GOSWe1uaNw]Fiscal cliff deal filled with pork - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> The difference between JFK liberalism and now:
> 
> Then
> Listening In: JFK Calls about Furniture (July 25, 1963) - YouTube
> 
> Now
> GSA Employees' Spoof Video - YouTube
> 
> IRS Party Caught on Tape: Dancing Away Tax Dollars - YouTube
> 
> Fiscal cliff deal filled with pork - YouTube



Total crap

You think there wasn't waste in the 60s and it is related to liberals?


----------



## midcan5

*This discussion does not belong in Philosophy. i.e. 'The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.'*

"The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term."  Wilfrid Sellars


----------



## Foxfyre

Believe me I tried Midcans.  Tried with every trick I knew to get them to discuss concepts instead of politic bashing per usual.  But alas, neither right nor left seems to have much ability to do that any more, or at least any interest.


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between JFK liberalism and now:
> 
> Then
> Listening In: JFK Calls about Furniture (July 25, 1963) - YouTube
> 
> Now
> GSA Employees' Spoof Video - YouTube
> 
> IRS Party Caught on Tape: Dancing Away Tax Dollars - YouTube
> 
> Fiscal cliff deal filled with pork - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total crap
> 
> You think there wasn't waste in the 60s and it is related to liberals?
Click to expand...


If you can't see the difference between a liberal president of the 1960's fretting about a $5,000 expenditure to what passes for government these days?  It is indeed crap but not because we expose it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Foxfyre said:


> Believe me I tried Midcans.  *Tried with every trick I knew *to get them to discuss concepts instead of politic bashing per usual.  But alas, neither right nor left seems to have much ability to do that any more, or at least any interest.



Rather than tricks try facts instead, as opposed to the errors and falsehoods youve expressed concerning the Framers, their intent, and the meaning of the Constitution.


----------



## freedombecki

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between JFK liberalism and now:
> 
> Then
> Listening In: JFK Calls about Furniture (July 25, 1963) - YouTube
> 
> Now
> GSA Employees' Spoof Video - YouTube
> 
> IRS Party Caught on Tape: Dancing Away Tax Dollars - YouTube
> 
> Fiscal cliff deal filled with pork - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total crap
> 
> You think there wasn't waste in the 60s and it is related to liberals?
Click to expand...

I don't think there's a hint of crap in what she said. In the 60s there was no such thing as a trillion dollar National Debt. Right now, we're staring down the barrel of a $17 trillion dollar National Debt explosive, and the liberals hone in on beating up on a Neighborhood Watch guy who had to engaged in self-defense.

That $17 trillion dollar national debt is the elephant sitting in the living room. It just won't go away with yammering about cutting wasteful spending while authorizing billions in printed money from the Treasury without notifying Congress which is the only group the Constitution authorizes to ok spending, and not this administration which is uncooperative with Constitutional law that clearly says Congress must authorize first, and not the Executive Branch.

The difference between modern Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans still don't steal the silver when they leave office. Republicans know it is the people's property and not parting gifts to campaign donors and staff.


----------



## Intense

midcan5 said:


> *This discussion does not belong in Philosophy. i.e. 'The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.'*
> 
> "The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term."  Wilfrid Sellars



The discussion is heated, and side tracked, yet it is rooted in the judgement of Liberal Philosophy. The direction the thread takes is in the hands of the participants. It is a philosophical discussion. 

My take, personally, would be to distinguish between true Liberalism, which I have zero problem with,  and Statist Progressivism, which I find Totalitarian. The Statist Utopia is a Paradise for the ruling class, and the connected. It is Hell on Earth, for the rest.


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between JFK liberalism and now:
> 
> Then
> Listening In: JFK Calls about Furniture (July 25, 1963) - YouTube
> 
> Now
> GSA Employees' Spoof Video - YouTube
> 
> IRS Party Caught on Tape: Dancing Away Tax Dollars - YouTube
> 
> Fiscal cliff deal filled with pork - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total crap
> 
> You think there wasn't waste in the 60s and it is related to liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't see the difference between a liberal president of the 1960's fretting about a $5,000 expenditure to what passes for government these days?  It is indeed crap but not because we expose it.
Click to expand...


Historical amnesia...

Jackie Kennedy was hounded by conservatives for her extravagant spending in refurbishing the White House

Harry Truman had the White House completely gutted and rebuilt from the inside out

Imagine the outrage if the Obamas did that......they can't even take a freaking vacation


----------



## Pogo

Intense said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This discussion does not belong in Philosophy. i.e. 'The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.'*
> 
> "The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term."  Wilfrid Sellars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion is heated, and side tracked, yet it is rooted in the judgement of Liberal Philosophy. The direction the thread takes is in the hands of the participants. It is a philosophical discussion.
> 
> My take, personally, would be to distinguish between true Liberalism, which I have zero problem with,  and Statist Progressivism, which I find Totalitarian. The Statist Utopia is a Paradise for the ruling class, and the connected. It is Hell on Earth, for the rest.
Click to expand...


The thread _should_ rooted in philosophy, but most seem to want to continue to pollute the discussion with the same-old hackneyed bullshit terms, hanging on to them for dear life rather than dare to ever question them.  Then they wonder why they get nowhere.

"Why do people hate liberals"?  Because the man in the box tells them to.  What the man in the box doesn't tell them is what 'liberal' _means_.  That would be too much like understanding, and understanding is definitely not the objective of the man in the box.  His objective is getting you to engage you in the Two Minutes Hate.  You're not supposed to ask "why".    Ignorance is Strength.


----------



## RKMBrown

Pogo said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This discussion does not belong in Philosophy. i.e. 'The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.'*
> 
> "The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term."  Wilfrid Sellars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion is heated, and side tracked, yet it is rooted in the judgement of Liberal Philosophy. The direction the thread takes is in the hands of the participants. It is a philosophical discussion.
> 
> My take, personally, would be to distinguish between true Liberalism, which I have zero problem with,  and Statist Progressivism, which I find Totalitarian. The Statist Utopia is a Paradise for the ruling class, and the connected. It is Hell on Earth, for the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thread _should_ rooted in philosophy, but most seem to want to continue to pollute the discussion with the same-old hackneyed bullshit terms, hanging on to them for dear life rather than dare to ever question them.  Then they wonder why they get nowhere.
> 
> "Why do people hate liberals"?  Because the man in the box tells them to.  What the man in the box doesn't tell them is what 'liberal' _means_.  That would be too much like understanding, and understanding is definitely not the objective of the man in the box.  His objective is getting you to engage you in the Two Minutes Hate.  You're not supposed to ask "why".    Ignorance is Strength.
Click to expand...


blah blah blah

Without struggle what is the point of life?  To have fun? To be lazy?  To enjoy the good life?  At what cost?  

Classical liberalism is the opposite of current liberal philosophy.  Current liberal leadership is led by authoritarian statist socialists. Just as current conservatives are lead by authoritarian statists. The common thread behind our two leading parties is authoritarian statism.  Gone are the ideals of individual freedom through a Laissez-faire economic environment in which governments sole job is to ensure property rights, but for the most part to just leave us the hell alone.  

What remains is people like Bush, Christie, Pelosi, Clinton, and Obama decrying folks who love freedom like Rand Paul are "dangerous" because they want to throw grandma over the cliff, invite terrorists to kill us, and starve the children.

We are under attack by a philosophy of authoritarian statism.  Their bible is rules for radicals by alinsky.   Their idols are satan, stalin, and hitler.   Yes these folks want to rule in hell, and are doing their best to get us there. A world where your every step is monitored and examined by government brown suits.  A world where everyone that is not in the ruling class will be herded like cattle.  A world where income will be replaced with food lines and basic shelter.  A world where owning livestock and growing your own food will be made illegal. 1984 is upon us.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This discussion does not belong in Philosophy. i.e. 'The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.'*
> 
> "The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term."  Wilfrid Sellars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion is heated, and side tracked, yet it is rooted in the judgement of Liberal Philosophy. The direction the thread takes is in the hands of the participants. It is a philosophical discussion.
> 
> My take, personally, would be to distinguish between true Liberalism, which I have zero problem with,  and Statist Progressivism, which I find Totalitarian. The Statist Utopia is a Paradise for the ruling class, and the connected. It is Hell on Earth, for the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thread _should_ rooted in philosophy, but most seem to want to continue to pollute the discussion with the same-old hackneyed bullshit terms, hanging on to them for dear life rather than dare to ever question them.  Then they wonder why they get nowhere.
> 
> "Why do people hate liberals"?  Because the man in the box tells them to.  What the man in the box doesn't tell them is what 'liberal' _means_.  That would be too much like understanding, and understanding is definitely not the objective of the man in the box.  His objective is getting you to engage you in the Two Minutes Hate.  You're not supposed to ask "why".    Ignorance is Strength.
Click to expand...


Actually you have a point though again the statement that anybody hates liberals is in itself hyperbole of the worst kind and is simply not true.  I don't think there is a single person here whether we identify ourselves as conservative or classical liberal or libertarian -- all mostly synonymous in modern American vernacular -- not one of us hates liberals aka leftists aka statists aka political class. also all mostly synonymous in modern American vernacular..

We hate the 'liberalism' they promote and try to force on the rest of us.

What we should be hating is the dishonesty of the statists, leftists, political class identifying themselves as 'liberal' and thereby appropriating and corrupting yet another perfectly good word that once represented something quite different than it does now.


----------



## Surfer

rightwinger said:


> Jackie Kennedy was hounded by conservatives for her extravagant spending in refurbishing the White House...Imagine the outrage if the Obamas did that......they can't even take a freaking vacation



Jackie Kennedy was a useless, whiny, overindulged, spoiled, useless brat. The Husseins HAVE done plenty of frivolous spending. The White House looks like the ghetto. They have taken more (pricey) vacations than all past presidents combined. Husseins' teleprompter-traveling costs alone are astronomical. The Husseins have been on vacation for their entire invasion of the White House.


----------



## freedombecki

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total crap
> 
> You think there wasn't waste in the 60s and it is related to liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't see the difference between a liberal president of the 1960's fretting about a $5,000 expenditure to what passes for government these days? It is indeed crap but not because we expose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Historical amnesia...
> 
> Jackie Kennedy was hounded by conservatives for her extravagant spending in refurbishing the White House
> 
> Harry Truman had the White House completely gutted and rebuilt from the inside out
> 
> Imagine the outrage if the Obamas did that......they can't even take a freaking vacation
Click to expand...

Huh? This administration when not out to a double lobster lunch is on permanent vacation from accountability!


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion is heated, and side tracked, yet it is rooted in the judgement of Liberal Philosophy. The direction the thread takes is in the hands of the participants. It is a philosophical discussion.
> 
> My take, personally, would be to distinguish between true Liberalism, which I have zero problem with,  and Statist Progressivism, which I find Totalitarian. The Statist Utopia is a Paradise for the ruling class, and the connected. It is Hell on Earth, for the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread _should_ rooted in philosophy, but most seem to want to continue to pollute the discussion with the same-old hackneyed bullshit terms, hanging on to them for dear life rather than dare to ever question them.  Then they wonder why they get nowhere.
> 
> "Why do people hate liberals"?  Because the man in the box tells them to.  What the man in the box doesn't tell them is what 'liberal' _means_.  That would be too much like understanding, and understanding is definitely not the objective of the man in the box.  His objective is getting you to engage you in the Two Minutes Hate.  You're not supposed to ask "why".    Ignorance is Strength.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you have a point though again the statement that anybody hates liberals is in itself hyperbole of the worst kind and is simply not true.  I don't think there is a single person here whether we identify ourselves as conservative or classical liberal or libertarian -- all mostly synonymous in modern American vernacular -- not one of us hates liberals aka leftists aka statists aka political class. also all mostly synonymous in modern American vernacular..
> 
> We hate the 'liberalism' they promote and try to force on the rest of us.
> 
> What we should be hating is the dishonesty of the statists, leftists, political class identifying themselves as 'liberal' and thereby appropriating and corrupting yet another perfectly good word that once represented something quite different than it does now.
Click to expand...


Give me a break....

Conservatives don't try to "force" their ideology on the rest of us?

The way it works is you run on your ideology. You win, the will of the people supports your position. What is happening is conservatives are forcing their ideology on the rest of us even though they are the minority


----------



## rightwinger

freedombecki said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't see the difference between a liberal president of the 1960's fretting about a $5,000 expenditure to what passes for government these days? It is indeed crap but not because we expose it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historical amnesia...
> 
> Jackie Kennedy was hounded by conservatives for her extravagant spending in refurbishing the White House
> 
> Harry Truman had the White House completely gutted and rebuilt from the inside out
> 
> Imagine the outrage if the Obamas did that......they can't even take a freaking vacation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? This administration when not out to a double lobster lunch is on permanent vacation from accountability!
Click to expand...

Save us your childish nonsense and show the nice people how Obama has taken more vacation than previous Presidents


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total crap
> 
> You think there wasn't waste in the 60s and it is related to liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't see the difference between a liberal president of the 1960's fretting about a $5,000 expenditure to what passes for government these days?  It is indeed crap but not because we expose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Historical amnesia...
> 
> Jackie Kennedy was hounded by conservatives for her extravagant spending in refurbishing the White House
> 
> Harry Truman had the White House completely gutted and rebuilt from the inside out
> 
> Imagine the outrage if the Obamas did that......they can't even take a freaking vacation
Click to expand...


The Obama vacations, private parties, and other extravagant expenditures coupled with the outrageous 'conferences' and other events staged by people under Obama's 'leadership' most likely cost the taxpayer more than the White House renovations done by the Trumans and Kennedys combined.  And in the 1950's and 1960's, Congress CARED what the people thought about them spending money and made every effort to at least appear responsible.  In those days obsolete programs and projects were ended.  Now they are just labeled with a new mission and given bigger budgets.

But to correct history that some of our members insist on mangling for purposes of political expediency:

"In 1961, when John and Jackie Kennedy moved into the White House, they found that the Truman-era decor and furnishings used modern fabrics or were casual reproductions of period pieces. These items had been acquired quickly as funds dried up in 1952, and, many felt, didn't befit the heritage of the home of the president of the United States. Jackie Kennedy's upbringing and education gave her a deep appreciation for fine art and authentic period pieces, so she looked for ways&#8212;on the White House's limited budget&#8212;to not merely redecorate but to restore the White House to a grander, more authentic period look appropriate to its role in American life."
Kennedy Renovation - White House Museum

History will show that Jackie used mostly donated expertise and private donated funds for much of the project.

Truman had his ups and downs with Congress re funding for White House structural projects but ultimately. . . "the main body of the mansion was found to be structurally unsound. Floors no longer merely creaked; they swayed. The president's bathtub was sinking into the floor. A leg of Margaret's piano broke through the floor in what is today the Private Dining Room. Engineers did a thorough examination and found plaster in a corner of the East Room sagging as much as 18 inches. Wooden beams had been weakened by cutting and drilling for plumbing and wiring over 150 years, and the addition of the steel roof and full third floor in 1927 added weight the building could no longer handle. They declared the whole house to be in imminent danger of collapse."

Congress then had no choice but authorizing the funding to do the necessary reconstruction.
Truman Reconstruction - White House Museum


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Total crap
> 
> You think there wasn't waste in the 60s and it is related to liberals?



There has always been waste, and always been corruption.

But as Obama guides us from first world to third world, what were minor anomalies transition to the defining features of this regime.

We have Eric fucking Holder - a level of corruption not previously imagined for this nation or any nation outside of a Central African dictatorship.


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't see the difference between a liberal president of the 1960's fretting about a $5,000 expenditure to what passes for government these days?  It is indeed crap but not because we expose it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historical amnesia...
> 
> Jackie Kennedy was hounded by conservatives for her extravagant spending in refurbishing the White House
> 
> Harry Truman had the White House completely gutted and rebuilt from the inside out
> 
> Imagine the outrage if the Obamas did that......they can't even take a freaking vacation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Obama vacations, private parties, and other extravagant expenditures couples with the outrageous 'conferences' and other events staged by people under Obama's 'leadership' most likely cost the taxpayer more than the White House renovations done by the Trumans and Kennedys combined.  And in the 1950's and 1960's, Congress CARED what the people thought about them spending money and made every effort to at least appear responsible.  In those days obsolete programs and projects were ended.  Now they are just labeled with a new mission and given bigger budgets.
> 
> But to correct history that some of our members insist on mangling for purposes of political expediency:
> 
> "In 1961, when John and Jackie Kennedy moved into the White House, they found that the Truman-era decor and furnishings used modern fabrics or were casual reproductions of period pieces. These items had been acquired quickly as funds dried up in 1952, and, many felt, didn't befit the heritage of the home of the president of the United States. Jackie Kennedy's upbringing and education gave her a deep appreciation for fine art and authentic period pieces, so she looked for wayson the White House's limited budgetto not merely redecorate but to restore the White House to a grander, more authentic period look appropriate to its role in American life."
> Kennedy Renovation - White House Museum
> 
> History will show that Jackie used mostly donated expertise and private donated funds for much of the project.
> 
> Truman had his ups and downs with Congress re funding for White House structural projects but ultimately. . . "the main body of the mansion was found to be structurally unsound. Floors no longer merely creaked; they swayed. The president's bathtub was sinking into the floor. A leg of Margaret's piano broke through the floor in what is today the Private Dining Room. Engineers did a thorough examination and found plaster in a corner of the East Room sagging as much as 18 inches. Wooden beams had been weakened by cutting and drilling for plumbing and wiring over 150 years, and the addition of the steel roof and full third floor in 1927 added weight the building could no longer handle. They declared the whole house to be in imminent danger of collapse."
> 
> Congress then had no choice but authorizing the funding to do the necessary reconstruction.
> Truman Reconstruction - White House Museum
Click to expand...


Please show where Obamas extravagant vacations, parties and expenditures outpace previous administrations or shut the fuck up


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total crap
> 
> You think there wasn't waste in the 60s and it is related to liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has always been waste, and always been corruption.
> 
> But as Obama guides us from first world to third world, what were minor anomalies transition to the defining features of this regime.
> 
> We have Eric fucking Holder - a level of corruption not previously imagined for this nation or any nation outside of a Central African dictatorship.
Click to expand...


Give us the numbers.....America wants to know

I heard it on talk radio is not a source


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread _should_ rooted in philosophy, but most seem to want to continue to pollute the discussion with the same-old hackneyed bullshit terms, hanging on to them for dear life rather than dare to ever question them.  Then they wonder why they get nowhere.
> 
> "Why do people hate liberals"?  Because the man in the box tells them to.  What the man in the box doesn't tell them is what 'liberal' _means_.  That would be too much like understanding, and understanding is definitely not the objective of the man in the box.  His objective is getting you to engage you in the Two Minutes Hate.  You're not supposed to ask "why".    Ignorance is Strength.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you have a point though again the statement that anybody hates liberals is in itself hyperbole of the worst kind and is simply not true.  I don't think there is a single person here whether we identify ourselves as conservative or classical liberal or libertarian -- all mostly synonymous in modern American vernacular -- not one of us hates liberals aka leftists aka statists aka political class. also all mostly synonymous in modern American vernacular..
> 
> We hate the 'liberalism' they promote and try to force on the rest of us.
> 
> What we should be hating is the dishonesty of the statists, leftists, political class identifying themselves as 'liberal' and thereby appropriating and corrupting yet another perfectly good word that once represented something quite different than it does now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a break....
> 
> Conservatives don't try to "force" their ideology on the rest of us?
> 
> The way it works is you run on your ideology. You win, the will of the people supports your position. What is happening is conservatives are forcing their ideology on the rest of us even though they are the minority
Click to expand...


For sure some who demand respect for their view of what society should be do describe themselves as conservative.  But they are not conservative in modern American vernacular and understanding if they look to the federal government to create that society.

Rightwing in modern American vernacular includes less powerful and centralized government and authority and includes modern American conservatives, libertarians, classical liberals, Tea Partiers, 9/12ers, constitutionalists, any and all which could be synonymous with each other.

Leftwing in modern American vernacular pushes for more centralized government size, scope, and control and includes modern American liberals, statists, progressives, political class,  any and all which could be synonymous with each other.


----------



## Uncensored2008

midcan5 said:


> *This discussion does not belong in Philosophy. i.e. 'The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.'*
> 
> "The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term."  Wilfrid Sellars



Instead of complaining, why don't *YOU* explain what you think modern liberalism encompasses? 

What are the major attributes?


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historical amnesia...
> 
> Jackie Kennedy was hounded by conservatives for her extravagant spending in refurbishing the White House
> 
> Harry Truman had the White House completely gutted and rebuilt from the inside out
> 
> Imagine the outrage if the Obamas did that......they can't even take a freaking vacation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama vacations, private parties, and other extravagant expenditures couples with the outrageous 'conferences' and other events staged by people under Obama's 'leadership' most likely cost the taxpayer more than the White House renovations done by the Trumans and Kennedys combined.  And in the 1950's and 1960's, Congress CARED what the people thought about them spending money and made every effort to at least appear responsible.  In those days obsolete programs and projects were ended.  Now they are just labeled with a new mission and given bigger budgets.
> 
> But to correct history that some of our members insist on mangling for purposes of political expediency:
> 
> "In 1961, when John and Jackie Kennedy moved into the White House, they found that the Truman-era decor and furnishings used modern fabrics or were casual reproductions of period pieces. These items had been acquired quickly as funds dried up in 1952, and, many felt, didn't befit the heritage of the home of the president of the United States. Jackie Kennedy's upbringing and education gave her a deep appreciation for fine art and authentic period pieces, so she looked for wayson the White House's limited budgetto not merely redecorate but to restore the White House to a grander, more authentic period look appropriate to its role in American life."
> Kennedy Renovation - White House Museum
> 
> History will show that Jackie used mostly donated expertise and private donated funds for much of the project.
> 
> Truman had his ups and downs with Congress re funding for White House structural projects but ultimately. . . "the main body of the mansion was found to be structurally unsound. Floors no longer merely creaked; they swayed. The president's bathtub was sinking into the floor. A leg of Margaret's piano broke through the floor in what is today the Private Dining Room. Engineers did a thorough examination and found plaster in a corner of the East Room sagging as much as 18 inches. Wooden beams had been weakened by cutting and drilling for plumbing and wiring over 150 years, and the addition of the steel roof and full third floor in 1927 added weight the building could no longer handle. They declared the whole house to be in imminent danger of collapse."
> 
> Congress then had no choice but authorizing the funding to do the necessary reconstruction.
> Truman Reconstruction - White House Museum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please show where Obamas extravagant vacations, parties and expenditures outpace previous administrations or shut the fuck up
Click to expand...


When George W. Bush and Laura Bush went on vacation, it was usually a 'working vacation' because they were entertaining foreign leaders or they had staff with them working on various government business.  And I think except for one trip to their family place in Kennebunkport, all their 'vacations' were at Camp David at their Crawford Ranch and were working vacations.

Compare that to the Obama vacation trips to Hawaii and Europe and Africa and Martha's Vineyard plus one I think home to Chicago and Obama has also had Camp David time.

No President is actually off the clock whatever they are doing, however,  though Obama seems far more detached from his job than any other president in my memory and there isn't much suggestion that many, if any, of his vacations are working vacations.  If I hear Jay Carney say one more time that the President found out about something in his administration the same way the rest of us did--in the media--I think I will scream.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Historical amnesia...
> 
> Jackie Kennedy was hounded by conservatives for her extravagant spending in refurbishing the White House
> 
> Harry Truman had the White House completely gutted and rebuilt from the inside out
> 
> Imagine the outrage if the Obamas did that......they can't even take a freaking vacation



The Obama's take hundred million dollar vacations every couple of weeks, as you know.

But beyond the fact that they are poor stewards of the public's money, what actions by the Obama regime designate it to be "liberal?" Is it the merging of federal and corporate power structure, where government agencies are collection agents of corporations, which themselves are extensions of the regime, that makes the Obama administration "liberal?" Is it the use of the IRS to attack political enemies that makes them "liberal?" Is it the extrajudicial killing of American citizens on an enemies list that makes them "liberal?"

Exactly what is it that makes the left in this nation, "liberal?"


----------



## thanatos144

Do you want to know why people hate liberals??? 






This is why. Hell even rock stars are pissed about this. 

David Draiman Blasts Rolling Stone: 'I Condemn This Worthless Piece Of S--t F--king Rag of a Magazine' | News @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com



> "How far the mighty have fallen," Draiman started, "I used to dream of making the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, as it used to be the ultimate statement of legitimacy for an aspiring musician and it meant that you had really made it. Over the past 5 years, Rolling Stone has become less and less about music, and has become more and more about bullshit pop-culture nonsense. Even though many of us may not care for it, we were able to live with it ... until this.
> 
> "You... dare... to... put... the... image... of... the... Boston... bomber... on... the... f--king... cover... of... your... magazine!!!!???? Are you out of your ultra-liberal, sympathetic-to-a-fault f--king minds???


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> The thread _should_ rooted in philosophy, but most seem to want to continue to pollute the discussion with the same-old hackneyed bullshit terms, hanging on to them for dear life rather than dare to ever question them.  Then they wonder why they get nowhere.
> 
> "Why do people hate liberals"?  Because the man in the box tells them to.  What the man in the box doesn't tell them is what 'liberal' _means_.  That would be too much like understanding, and understanding is definitely not the objective of the man in the box.  His objective is getting you to engage you in the Two Minutes Hate.  You're not supposed to ask "why".    Ignorance is Strength.



What box?

Since the press is merely an extension of the democratic party, what "man in a box" would tell people to "hate" liberals?

Look, I mostly agree with your definition of liberal - given which, the dichotomy in this nation is more of a contrast between the liberals in the GOP and Libertarian parties, and the leftists of the DNC.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historical amnesia...
> 
> Jackie Kennedy was hounded by conservatives for her extravagant spending in refurbishing the White House
> 
> Harry Truman had the White House completely gutted and rebuilt from the inside out
> 
> Imagine the outrage if the Obamas did that......they can't even take a freaking vacation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama's take hundred million dollar vacations every couple of weeks, as you know.
> 
> But beyond the fact that they are poor stewards of the public's money, what actions by the Obama regime designate it to be "liberal?" Is it the merging of federal and corporate power structure, where government agencies are collection agents of corporations, which themselves are extensions of the regime, that makes the Obama administration "liberal?" Is it the use of the IRS to attack political enemies that makes them "liberal?" Is it the extrajudicial killing of American citizens on an enemies list that makes them "liberal?"
> 
> Exactly what is it that makes the left in this nation, "liberal?"
Click to expand...


Exactly!  They aren't liberal.  Here I've been arguing that the way Americans have redefined the terms of conservatism and liberalism be recognized and acknowledged while Pogo has been telling me I can't do that.  And perhaps he is right.

Instead we should be loudly protesting that the left presumes to refer to themselves as 'liberals' or 'progressives' when in fact they are mostly a wierd combination of Marxism, Socialism, and Facism in the role they would assign to the federal government.

We need a whole new word to describe them and then we classical liberals can reclaim 'liberal' as it was defined in the 17th Century.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Give us the numbers.....America wants to know
> 
> I heard it on talk radio is not a source



Numbers of what?

You want to obfuscate for your shameful party. But the fact that Eric Holder remains in office, despite the dozens of known felonies by him, from selling guns to Mexican drug lords, to complicity in election fraud by refusing to prosecute NBPP members who intimidate voters. In conjunction with the Soros group or MediaMatters, the racist criminal Holder forced differing civil service exams be used depending on race to provide black applicants an advantage.

Holder is openly corrupt.


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historical amnesia...
> 
> Jackie Kennedy was hounded by conservatives for her extravagant spending in refurbishing the White House
> 
> Harry Truman had the White House completely gutted and rebuilt from the inside out
> 
> Imagine the outrage if the Obamas did that......they can't even take a freaking vacation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama's take hundred million dollar vacations every couple of weeks, as you know.
> 
> But beyond the fact that they are poor stewards of the public's money, what actions by the Obama regime designate it to be "liberal?" Is it the merging of federal and corporate power structure, where government agencies are collection agents of corporations, which themselves are extensions of the regime, that makes the Obama administration "liberal?" Is it the use of the IRS to attack political enemies that makes them "liberal?" Is it the extrajudicial killing of American citizens on an enemies list that makes them "liberal?"
> 
> Exactly what is it that makes the left in this nation, "liberal?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly!  They aren't liberal.  Here I've been arguing that the way Americans have redefined the terms of conservatism and liberalism be recognized and acknowledged while Pogo has been telling me I can't do that.  And perhaps he is right.
> 
> Instead we should be loudly protesting that the left presumes to refer to themselves as 'liberals' or 'progressives' when in fact they are mostly a wierd combination of Marxism, Socialism, and Facism in the role they would assign to the federal government.
> 
> We need a whole new word to describe them and then we classical liberals can reclaim 'liberal' as it was defined in the 17th Century.
Click to expand...


The problem comes in trying to push competing political ideologies into 'sides' along one dimension. The Nolan chart does a much better job of mapping the different ideologies of current parties and leaders, but all such mappings are artificial at best.

The latest split over the NSA spying (witnessed most measurably in the recent vote on Justin Amash's amendment) shows a more meaningful divide - in my view - between authoritarians and libertarians in both parties.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama's take hundred million dollar vacations every couple of weeks, as you know.
> 
> But beyond the fact that they are poor stewards of the public's money, what actions by the Obama regime designate it to be "liberal?" Is it the merging of federal and corporate power structure, where government agencies are collection agents of corporations, which themselves are extensions of the regime, that makes the Obama administration "liberal?" Is it the use of the IRS to attack political enemies that makes them "liberal?" Is it the extrajudicial killing of American citizens on an enemies list that makes them "liberal?"
> 
> Exactly what is it that makes the left in this nation, "liberal?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!  They aren't liberal.  Here I've been arguing that the way Americans have redefined the terms of conservatism and liberalism be recognized and acknowledged while Pogo has been telling me I can't do that.  And perhaps he is right.
> 
> Instead we should be loudly protesting that the left presumes to refer to themselves as 'liberals' or 'progressives' when in fact they are mostly a wierd combination of Marxism, Socialism, and Facism in the role they would assign to the federal government.
> 
> We need a whole new word to describe them and then we classical liberals can reclaim 'liberal' as it was defined in the 17th Century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem comes in trying to push competing political ideologies into 'sides' along one dimension. The Nolan chart does a much better job of mapping the different ideologies of current parties and leaders, but all such mappings are artificial at best.
> 
> The latest split over the NSA spying (witnessed most measurably in the recent vote on Justin Amash's amendment) shows a more meaningful divide - in my view - between authoritarians and libertarians in both parties.
Click to expand...


I have to object here.  The Nolan chart is useless in mapping American ideologies.  Look at it:






Can you look at a George Zimmerman, the debates over gun control, the ruthless application of political correctness, the demands that the haves support the have nots to a greater extent, the demands that private corporations, say insurance companies, include contraceptives in their coverage at no additional cost to the policy holder, etc. and say that the liberal/statist is for more personal or economic freedom?

Now libertarians and conservatives, as I define those terms in America in modern times, definitely are for both more personal and economic freedom.

And this one gets it wrong almost as badly:


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!  They aren't liberal.  Here I've been arguing that the way Americans have redefined the terms of conservatism and liberalism be recognized and acknowledged while Pogo has been telling me I can't do that.  And perhaps he is right.
> 
> Instead we should be loudly protesting that the left presumes to refer to themselves as 'liberals' or 'progressives' when in fact they are mostly a wierd combination of Marxism, Socialism, and Facism in the role they would assign to the federal government.
> 
> We need a whole new word to describe them and then we classical liberals can reclaim 'liberal' as it was defined in the 17th Century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem comes in trying to push competing political ideologies into 'sides' along one dimension. The Nolan chart does a much better job of mapping the different ideologies of current parties and leaders, but all such mappings are artificial at best.
> 
> The latest split over the NSA spying (witnessed most measurably in the recent vote on Justin Amash's amendment) shows a more meaningful divide - in my view - between authoritarians and libertarians in both parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to object here.  The Nolan chart is useless in mapping American ideologies.  Look at it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you look at a George Zimmerman, the debates over gun control, the ruthless application of political correctness, the demands that the haves support the have nots to a greater extent, the demands that private corporations, say insurance companies, include contraceptives in their coverage at no additional cost to the policy holder, etc. and say that the liberal/statist is for more personal or economic freedom?
> 
> Now libertarians and conservatives, as I define those terms in America in modern times, definitely are for both more personal and economic freedom.
> 
> And this one gets it wrong almost as badly:
Click to expand...


Both of those seem far less wrong than the utter ambiguity of six different custom definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative'. If we're just arguing over who gets to control definitions, I'll bow out. That's an important debate, but not very interesting. I'd rather look at just what different groups and agendas represent in terms of ideology.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!  They aren't liberal.  Here I've been arguing that the way Americans have redefined the terms of conservatism and liberalism be recognized and acknowledged while Pogo has been telling me I can't do that.  And perhaps he is right.
> 
> Instead we should be loudly protesting that the left presumes to refer to themselves as 'liberals' or 'progressives' when in fact they are mostly a wierd combination of Marxism, Socialism, and Facism in the role they would assign to the federal government.
> 
> We need a whole new word to describe them and then we classical liberals can reclaim 'liberal' as it was defined in the 17th Century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem comes in trying to push competing political ideologies into 'sides' along one dimension. The Nolan chart does a much better job of mapping the different ideologies of current parties and leaders, but all such mappings are artificial at best.
> 
> The latest split over the NSA spying (witnessed most measurably in the recent vote on Justin Amash's amendment) shows a more meaningful divide - in my view - between authoritarians and libertarians in both parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to object here.  The Nolan chart is useless in mapping American ideologies.  Look at it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you look at a George Zimmerman, the debates over gun control, the ruthless application of political correctness, the demands that the haves support the have nots to a greater extent, the demands that private corporations, say insurance companies, include contraceptives in their coverage at no additional cost to the policy holder, etc. and say that the liberal/statist is for more personal or economic freedom?
> 
> Now libertarians and conservatives, as I define those terms in America in modern times, definitely are for both more personal and economic freedom.
> 
> And this one gets it wrong almost as badly:
Click to expand...


Huh?  
Just because you are an authoritarian does not mean that chart is wrong. Though I would disagree that Newt is a libertarian thinker.  He's for lower taxes but he's also for bigger government, government power over the people, and is a war hawk.


----------



## Spoonman




----------



## dblack

Spoonman said:


>



You do remember the ending of that little story, no?


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem comes in trying to push competing political ideologies into 'sides' along one dimension. The Nolan chart does a much better job of mapping the different ideologies of current parties and leaders, but all such mappings are artificial at best.
> 
> The latest split over the NSA spying (witnessed most measurably in the recent vote on Justin Amash's amendment) shows a more meaningful divide - in my view - between authoritarians and libertarians in both parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to object here.  The Nolan chart is useless in mapping American ideologies.  Look at it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you look at a George Zimmerman, the debates over gun control, the ruthless application of political correctness, the demands that the haves support the have nots to a greater extent, the demands that private corporations, say insurance companies, include contraceptives in their coverage at no additional cost to the policy holder, etc. and say that the liberal/statist is for more personal or economic freedom?
> 
> Now libertarians and conservatives, as I define those terms in America in modern times, definitely are for both more personal and economic freedom.
> 
> And this one gets it wrong almost as badly:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> Just because you are an authoritarian does not mean that chart is wrong. Though I would disagree that Newt is a libertarian thinker.  He's for lower taxes but he's also for bigger government, government power over the people, and is a war hawk.
Click to expand...


To not bend over and kiss terrorists ass like Obama and Paul does not make one a war hawk.


----------



## thanatos144

By the way these charts are stupid.... If you need a chart to validate your ideology then you have problems with what you believe in.


----------



## Spoonman

dblack said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do remember the ending of that little story, no?
Click to expand...


trillions in debt? 11 states with more people on welfare then working?  high unemployment? domestic spying? total dissatisfaction with government? Rising costs? High Gas prices? Crumbling infrastructure?    

Exactly which ending were you looking for?


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem comes in trying to push competing political ideologies into 'sides' along one dimension. The Nolan chart does a much better job of mapping the different ideologies of current parties and leaders, but all such mappings are artificial at best.
> 
> The latest split over the NSA spying (witnessed most measurably in the recent vote on Justin Amash's amendment) shows a more meaningful divide - in my view - between authoritarians and libertarians in both parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to object here.  The Nolan chart is useless in mapping American ideologies.  Look at it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you look at a George Zimmerman, the debates over gun control, the ruthless application of political correctness, the demands that the haves support the have nots to a greater extent, the demands that private corporations, say insurance companies, include contraceptives in their coverage at no additional cost to the policy holder, etc. and say that the liberal/statist is for more personal or economic freedom?
> 
> Now libertarians and conservatives, as I define those terms in America in modern times, definitely are for both more personal and economic freedom.
> 
> And this one gets it wrong almost as badly:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> Just because you are an authoritarian does not mean that chart is wrong. Though I would disagree that Newt is a libertarian thinker.  He's for lower taxes but he's also for bigger government, government power over the people, and is a war hawk.
Click to expand...


I am about as far from an authoritarian re big government as it gets short of anarchy.

However because I support the concept of social contract, and you would deny me what I consider to be an unalienable right in that regard, you would be the authoritarian in the Libertarian (big "L") view that you hold on that.


----------



## RKMBrown

thanatos144 said:


> To not bend over and kiss terrorists ass like Obama and Paul does not make one a war hawk.



What terrorists? Osama was a CIA Agent. All we needed to do was put a friggin lock on the airplane cockpits. DUH.  We did not need to spend trillions of dollars fighting a war on "that  which we fear."  We are chasing ghosts in the deserts of the middle east.  I've seen no evidence that Newt is of the belief of small government and using our military primarily to defend our boarders.  Newt appears to me to have bought into the Neo-Con vision of colonialism.  Obama got elected based in part on his stating he would end it. He left it there and made it worse, I can only surmise, because he has no balls.


----------



## Spoonman

Crisis? What Crisis?


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem comes in trying to push competing political ideologies into 'sides' along one dimension. The Nolan chart does a much better job of mapping the different ideologies of current parties and leaders, but all such mappings are artificial at best.
> 
> The latest split over the NSA spying (witnessed most measurably in the recent vote on Justin Amash's amendment) shows a more meaningful divide - in my view - between authoritarians and libertarians in both parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to object here.  The Nolan chart is useless in mapping American ideologies.  Look at it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you look at a George Zimmerman, the debates over gun control, the ruthless application of political correctness, the demands that the haves support the have nots to a greater extent, the demands that private corporations, say insurance companies, include contraceptives in their coverage at no additional cost to the policy holder, etc. and say that the liberal/statist is for more personal or economic freedom?
> 
> Now libertarians and conservatives, as I define those terms in America in modern times, definitely are for both more personal and economic freedom.
> 
> And this one gets it wrong almost as badly:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both of those seem far less wrong than the utter ambiguity of six different custom definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative'. If we're just arguing over who gets to control definitions, I'll bow out. That's an important debate, but not very interesting. I'd rather look at just what different groups and agendas represent in terms of ideology.
Click to expand...


I have no desire to control definitions.  I have simply begged that we agree on them so that we know who and what we are referring to when we use the term 'liberal' or 'conservative'.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> I am about as far from an authoritarian re big government as it gets short of anarchy.
> 
> However because I support the concept of social contract, and you would deny me what I consider to be an unalienable right in that regard, you would be the authoritarian in the Libertarian (big "L") view that you hold on that.



Fox I know you don't get it.  But I'll try again nonetheless. 

Authorizing and/or agreeing with a government program that *forces* people into a grand social contract such as social security *is an act of force against the peoples' right to choose to not engage in your grand social contract*. 

Forced social contracts are authoritarian.

Liberty does not include the right to take other people's liberties away from them. Why is that concept so hard for "some" people to understand?

My defense from YOUR attack on my finances is not an authoritarian act.  It is not an authoritarian act because YOU DON'T OWN ME.  Excuse my caps but you seem like an intelligent sort but don't seem to get the concept of liberty vs forced slavery and I find that really odd.


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To not bend over and kiss terrorists ass like Obama and Paul does not make one a war hawk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What terrorists? Osama was a CIA Agent. All we needed to do was put a friggin lock on the airplane cockpits. DUH.  We did not need to spend trillions of dollars fighting a war on "that  which we fear."  We are chasing ghosts in the deserts of the middle east.  I've seen no evidence that Newt is of the belief of small government and using our military primarily to defend our boarders.  Newt appears to me to have bought into the Neo-Con vision of colonialism.  Obama got elected based in part on his stating he would end it. He left it there and made it worse, I can only surmise, because he has no balls.
Click to expand...


Do those tin foil hats come in adult sizes to?


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am about as far from an authoritarian re big government as it gets short of anarchy.
> 
> However because I support the concept of social contract, and you would deny me what I consider to be an unalienable right in that regard, you would be the authoritarian in the Libertarian (big "L") view that you hold on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox I know you don't get it.  But I'll try again nonetheless.
> 
> Authorizing and/or agreeing with a government program that *forces* people into a grand social contract such as social security *is an act of force against the peoples' right to choose to not engage in your grand social contract*.
> 
> Forced social contracts are authoritarian.
> 
> Liberty does not include the right to take other people's liberties away from them. Why is that concept so hard for "some" people to understand?
> 
> My defense from YOUR attack on my finances is not an authoritarian act.  It is not an authoritarian act because YOU DON'T OWN ME.  Excuse my caps but you seem like an intelligent sort but don't seem to get the concept of liberty vs force slavery and I find really odd.
Click to expand...


we are a Republic not a fascist anarchy that you seem to want


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am about as far from an authoritarian re big government as it gets short of anarchy.
> 
> However because I support the concept of social contract, and you would deny me what I consider to be an unalienable right in that regard, you would be the authoritarian in the Libertarian (big "L") view that you hold on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox I know you don't get it.  But I'll try again nonetheless.
> 
> Authorizing and/or agreeing with a government program that *forces* people into a grand social contract such as social security *is an act of force against the peoples' right to choose to not engage in your grand social contract*.
> 
> Forced social contracts are authoritarian.
> 
> Liberty does not include the right to take other people's liberties away from them. Why is that concept so hard for "some" people to understand?
> 
> My defense from YOUR attack on my finances is not an authoritarian act.  It is not an authoritarian act because YOU DON'T OWN ME.  Excuse my caps but you seem like an intelligent sort but don't seem to get the concept of liberty vs force slavery and I find really odd.
Click to expand...


And once more it is YOU who doesn't get it.  Social contract does not take people's liberties away and it does not involve government at all UNTIL the people have put together the social contract.

Social security is NOT social contract.  It is an authoritarian dictate of government.

Affirmative action is NOT social contract.  It is an authoritarian dictate of government.

Obamacare is NOT social contract.  It is an authoritarian dictate of government.

Dictates and edicts from government of ANY kind are NOT social contract.

But a group of people voluntarily combining their resources for mutual benefit and putting ordinances into place such as a neighborhood association or a volunteer fire district or a shared water or sewer system or a school IS social contract and is the intended  unalienable right of people to do according to the Founders.

Social contract is a dictate or edict from a group of people of like minds and for mutual benefit for government to enforce or implement

The Founders intended we the people to tell the government what it will do and what it cannot do.  THAT is social contract.

The government dictating to the people what they can and cannot do and what they will be required to do is not.

And bringing that into the thread topic, it is the American liberals, progressives, leftists, statists, political class who want very little social contract to be allowed and who want a whole lot of authoritarian federal government with power to order whatever society they think they want.

It is the American conservatives, libertarians, classical liberals who want the concept of social contract restored and the federal government pared back to its original intent.   

.


----------



## RKMBrown

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To not bend over and kiss terrorists ass like Obama and Paul does not make one a war hawk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What terrorists? Osama was a CIA Agent. All we needed to do was put a friggin lock on the airplane cockpits. DUH.  We did not need to spend trillions of dollars fighting a war on "that  which we fear."  We are chasing ghosts in the deserts of the middle east.  I've seen no evidence that Newt is of the belief of small government and using our military primarily to defend our boarders.  Newt appears to me to have bought into the Neo-Con vision of colonialism.  Obama got elected based in part on his stating he would end it. He left it there and made it worse, I can only surmise, because he has no balls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do those tin foil hats come in adult sizes to?
Click to expand...


What part of my post confused you?


----------



## RKMBrown

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am about as far from an authoritarian re big government as it gets short of anarchy.
> 
> However because I support the concept of social contract, and you would deny me what I consider to be an unalienable right in that regard, you would be the authoritarian in the Libertarian (big "L") view that you hold on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox I know you don't get it.  But I'll try again nonetheless.
> 
> Authorizing and/or agreeing with a government program that *forces* people into a grand social contract such as social security *is an act of force against the peoples' right to choose to not engage in your grand social contract*.
> 
> Forced social contracts are authoritarian.
> 
> Liberty does not include the right to take other people's liberties away from them. Why is that concept so hard for "some" people to understand?
> 
> My defense from YOUR attack on my finances is not an authoritarian act.  It is not an authoritarian act because YOU DON'T OWN ME.  Excuse my caps but you seem like an intelligent sort but don't seem to get the concept of liberty vs force slavery and I find really odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we are a Republic not a fascist anarchy that you seem to want
Click to expand...


What does the grand social contracts of social security and medicare have to do with separation of federal and state power?  I'm all for returning this nation back to a republic.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What terrorists? Osama was a CIA Agent. All we needed to do was put a friggin lock on the airplane cockpits. DUH.  We did not need to spend trillions of dollars fighting a war on "that  which we fear."  We are chasing ghosts in the deserts of the middle east.  I've seen no evidence that Newt is of the belief of small government and using our military primarily to defend our boarders.  Newt appears to me to have bought into the Neo-Con vision of colonialism.  Obama got elected based in part on his stating he would end it. He left it there and made it worse, I can only surmise, because he has no balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do those tin foil hats come in adult sizes to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of my post confused you?
Click to expand...


The words longer than six letters.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am about as far from an authoritarian re big government as it gets short of anarchy.
> 
> However because I support the concept of social contract, and you would deny me what I consider to be an unalienable right in that regard, you would be the authoritarian in the Libertarian (big "L") view that you hold on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox I know you don't get it.  But I'll try again nonetheless.
> 
> Authorizing and/or agreeing with a government program that *forces* people into a grand social contract such as social security *is an act of force against the peoples' right to choose to not engage in your grand social contract*.
> 
> Forced social contracts are authoritarian.
> 
> Liberty does not include the right to take other people's liberties away from them. Why is that concept so hard for "some" people to understand?
> 
> My defense from YOUR attack on my finances is not an authoritarian act.  It is not an authoritarian act because YOU DON'T OWN ME.  Excuse my caps but you seem like an intelligent sort but don't seem to get the concept of liberty vs forced slavery and I find that really odd.
Click to expand...


In what bizarre world do people get to choose which government programs apply to them?
Do you get to choose whether your tax dollars pay for a war you don't believe in?  Do you get to choose whether you should have to pay for police protection? and you choose which roads your taxes pay for?

Social Security is still around because it is immensely popular with the voting public. So much so that candidates can kiss their chances of getting elected goodbye if they try to cut it

Your references to forced slavery are insulting to not only yourself but all Americans.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox I know you don't get it.  But I'll try again nonetheless.
> 
> Authorizing and/or agreeing with a government program that *forces* people into a grand social contract such as social security *is an act of force against the peoples' right to choose to not engage in your grand social contract*.
> 
> Forced social contracts are authoritarian.
> 
> Liberty does not include the right to take other people's liberties away from them. Why is that concept so hard for "some" people to understand?
> 
> My defense from YOUR attack on my finances is not an authoritarian act.  It is not an authoritarian act because YOU DON'T OWN ME.  Excuse my caps but you seem like an intelligent sort but don't seem to get the concept of liberty vs force slavery and I find really odd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we are a Republic not a fascist anarchy that you seem to want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the grand social contracts of social security and medicare have to do with separation of federal and state power?  I'm all for returning this nation back to a republic.
Click to expand...


Again, social security is not social contract.
Medicare is not social contract.

A group of people organizing a savings and loan coop or pooling their resources in an investment IS social contract.

A group of people voluntarily pooling their resources to lure a doctor into the community or forming a group to share insurance costs IS social contract.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Social contract does not take people's liberties away and it does not involve government at all UNTIL the people have put together the social contract.
> 
> Social security is NOT social contract.  It is an authoritarian dictate of government.
> 
> Affirmative action is NOT social contract.  It is an authoritarian dictate of government.
> 
> Obamacare is NOT social contract.  It is an authoritarian dictate of government.
> 
> Dictates and edicts from government of ANY kind are NOT social contract.
> 
> But a group of people voluntarily combining their resources for mutual benefit and putting ordinances into place such as a neighborhood association or a volunteer fire district or a shared water or sewer system or a school IS social contract and is the intended  unalienable right of people to do according to the Founders.
> 
> Social contract is a dictate or edict from a group of people of like minds and for mutual benefit for government to enforce or implement
> 
> The Founders intended we the people to tell the government what it will do and what it cannot do.  THAT is social contract.
> 
> The government dictating to the people what they can and cannot do and what they will be required to do is not.
> 
> And bringing that into the thread topic, it is the American liberals, progressives, leftists, statists, political class who want very little social contract to be allowed and who want a whole lot of authoritarian federal government with power to order whatever society they think they want.
> 
> It is the American conservatives, libertarians, classical liberals who want the concept of social contract restored and the federal government pared back to its original intent.
> 
> .



>>> Social contract does not take people's liberties away and it does not involve government at all UNTIL the people have put together the social contract.

That's a lie promulgated by the tyrants of the majority.  

>> Social security is NOT social contract.  It is an authoritarian dictate of government.

What is the difference? Are you going senile? First you say you are all for social contracts like social security.  Then you say you are not authoritarian. Then you say agree SS is an authoritarian dictate.  And this circle of contradiction makes sense to you?

>> Affirmative action is NOT social contract.  It is an authoritarian dictate of government.

Ok...

>>> Obamacare is NOT social contract.  It is an authoritarian dictate of government.

Ok...

>>> Dictates and edicts from government of ANY kind are NOT social contract.

Then you are just playing with words.  SS and medicare have been called the grand social contracts of our day.  I'm not making it up.

>>> But a group of people *voluntarily* combining their resources for mutual benefit and putting ordinances into place such as a neighborhood association or a volunteer fire district or a shared water or sewer system or a school IS social contract and is the intended  unalienable right of people to do according to the Founders.

Agreed.

>> Social contract is a dictate or edict from a group of people of like minds and for mutual benefit for government to enforce or implement

And how is that not what SS is?  Make up your mind.  Is voluntary agreement necessary or not?

>>> The Founders intended we the people to tell the government what it will do and what it cannot do.  THAT is social contract.

No that is your opinion of a goal of a small group of people. 

>>> The government dictating to the people what they can and cannot do and what they will be required to do is not.

Point?

>>> And bringing that into the thread topic, it is the American liberals, progressives, leftists, statists, political class who want very little social contract to be allowed and who want a whole lot of authoritarian federal government with power to order whatever society they think they want.

Then you and I are in violent agreement and you are just mincing words?

>>> It is the American conservatives, libertarians, classical liberals who want the concept of social contract restored and the federal government pared back to its original intent.   

You appear to ascribe the term "social contract" as some form of altruistic libertarian and/or classical liberal ideal.  You may be confusing the broad term "social contract" with the piece of paper we like to call the constitution.


----------



## Intense

Pogo said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This discussion does not belong in Philosophy. i.e. 'The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.'*
> 
> "The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term."  Wilfrid Sellars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion is heated, and side tracked, yet it is rooted in the judgement of Liberal Philosophy. The direction the thread takes is in the hands of the participants. It is a philosophical discussion.
> 
> My take, personally, would be to distinguish between true Liberalism, which I have zero problem with,  and Statist Progressivism, which I find Totalitarian. The Statist Utopia is a Paradise for the ruling class, and the connected. It is Hell on Earth, for the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thread _should_ rooted in philosophy, but most seem to want to continue to pollute the discussion with the same-old hackneyed bullshit terms, hanging on to them for dear life rather than dare to ever question them.  Then they wonder why they get nowhere.
> 
> "Why do people hate liberals"?  Because the man in the box tells them to.  What the man in the box doesn't tell them is what 'liberal' _means_.  That would be too much like understanding, and understanding is definitely not the objective of the man in the box.  His objective is getting you to engage you in the Two Minutes Hate.  You're not supposed to ask "why".    Ignorance is Strength.
Click to expand...




> The thread _should_ rooted in philosophy, but most seem to want to continue to pollute the discussion with the same-old hackneyed bullshit terms, hanging on to them for dear life rather than dare to ever question them.  Then they wonder why they get nowhere.



You mean like stuff like this? 


*"Why do people hate liberals"?  Because the man in the box tells them to.  What the man in the box doesn't tell them is what 'liberal' means.  That would be too much like understanding, and understanding is definitely not the objective of the man in the box.  His objective is getting you to engage you in the Two Minutes Hate.  You're not supposed to ask "why".    Ignorance is Strength.*

As Individual Liberty is attacked and eroded away, this is your big concern? Freedom of Speech is an important tool, as much for the listener as for the speaker. You might want to consider that. Personally, I find those most offended by speech, and ideas, not their own, are out of balance. Life is about more than controlling others and bending them to anyone's will. Witness, and bearing witness of what you see,  is both a developed skill, and an obligation to conscience, at the least. 

No construct is of more value, than the principle purpose it was created to preserve. 

The point about the thread being rooted in Liberal Philosophy was in relation to the forum it is located in, and why.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMbrown, I have known quite a few folks who were adults at the time social security was enacted.  And not one single one of them was even advised, much less consulted and asked for imput and consent, before social security was enacted into law.   They were required to participate by an edict of government and not through any voluntary decision of their own.

That is NOT social contract.

Social contract can be the people of a city or state voting on a referendum that will become law IF there is a majority vote.  Or it can be a community organizing a volunteer fire department.   Or it can be a neighborhood organizing a neighborhood watch program.   But it is the people themselves mutually deciding what will and will not be of benefit to them and not government deciding that for them.

Now you seem to be unable to distinguish the difference between those two things, and I write this purely for the education of the few who do have the capacity to understand the difference between those two things.


----------



## freedombecki

rightwinger said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historical amnesia...
> 
> Jackie Kennedy was hounded by conservatives for her extravagant spending in refurbishing the White House
> 
> Harry Truman had the White House completely gutted and rebuilt from the inside out
> 
> Imagine the outrage if the Obamas did that......they can't even take a freaking vacation
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? This administration when not out to a double lobster lunch is on permanent vacation from accountability!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Save us your childish nonsense and show the nice people how Obama has taken more vacation than previous Presidents
Click to expand...

 What? Obama worry?


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox I know you don't get it.  But I'll try again nonetheless.
> 
> Authorizing and/or agreeing with a government program that *forces* people into a grand social contract such as social security *is an act of force against the peoples' right to choose to not engage in your grand social contract*.
> 
> Forced social contracts are authoritarian.
> 
> Liberty does not include the right to take other people's liberties away from them. Why is that concept so hard for "some" people to understand?
> 
> My defense from YOUR attack on my finances is not an authoritarian act.  It is not an authoritarian act because YOU DON'T OWN ME.  Excuse my caps but you seem like an intelligent sort but don't seem to get the concept of liberty vs force slavery and I find really odd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we are a Republic not a fascist anarchy that you seem to want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the grand social contracts of social security and medicare have to do with separation of federal and state power?  I'm all for returning this nation back to a republic.
Click to expand...


Do you know whats sad??? Is you and dblack dont even realize you guys try to force your brand of fascism IE liberalism on the rest of us....Most of us are quite content with having the power to shape our government as we need it not as YOU DEMAND we have it.... You guys are very progressive in your attitude. When a opinion is stated you guys ether twist and spin what was said or you personally attack.... The personally attacking thing doesn't bother me cause I do it right back...Libertarians today are no better them democrats in almost all fashion except taxes...You want complete freedom to do what you want with out having consequences and refuse to pay for those that happen. It is like children demanding a new toy but refusing to work for it.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMbrown, I have known quite a few folks who were adults at the time social security was enacted.  And not one single one of them was even advised, much less consulted and asked for imput and consent, before social security was enacted into law.   They were required to participate by an edict of government and not through any voluntary decision of their own.
> 
> That is NOT social contract.
> 
> Social contract can be the people of a city or state voting on a referendum that will become law IF there is a majority vote.  Or it can be a community organizing a volunteer fire department.   Or it can be a neighborhood organizing a neighborhood watch program.   But it is the people themselves mutually deciding what will and will not be of benefit to them and not government deciding that for them.
> 
> Now you seem to be unable to distinguish the difference between those two things, and I write this purely for the education of the few who do have the capacity to understand the difference between those two things.



You are quibbling over terms.  As if the "contract" of "social security" is not a "social contract."  

Why do you think you own the right to define the term "social contract?"

From websters: 

Social Contract: an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each.

No mention of authorization. No mention of "vote."

Yes fire departments are funded and operate under a social contract.  

SS is an insurance program managed by the US government by State and Federal Agencies under a different social contract.


----------



## RKMBrown

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> we are a Republic not a fascist anarchy that you seem to want
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does the grand social contracts of social security and medicare have to do with separation of federal and state power?  I'm all for returning this nation back to a republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know whats sad??? Is you and dblack dont even realize you guys try to force your brand of fascism IE liberalism on the rest of us....Most of us are quite content with having the power to shape our government as we need it not as YOU DEMAND we have it.... You guys are very progressive in your attitude. When a opinion is stated you guys ether twist and spin what was said or you personally attack.... The personally attacking thing doesn't bother me cause I do it right back...Libertarians today are no better them democrats in almost all fashion except taxes...You want complete freedom to do what you want with out having consequences and refuse to pay for those that happen. It is like children demanding a new toy but refusing to work for it.
Click to expand...


I want the freedom to do what I want, yes.  I'll be responsible for my own decisions.  I work and have never taken a dime of welfare from this authoritarian government.  I don't want you to pay for any consequences of my decisions.  I mean this will all respect, you are a dirt bag liar, screw you ass hole.


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does the grand social contracts of social security and medicare have to do with separation of federal and state power?  I'm all for returning this nation back to a republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know whats sad??? Is you and dblack dont even realize you guys try to force your brand of fascism IE liberalism on the rest of us....Most of us are quite content with having the power to shape our government as we need it not as YOU DEMAND we have it.... You guys are very progressive in your attitude. When a opinion is stated you guys ether twist and spin what was said or you personally attack.... The personally attacking thing doesn't bother me cause I do it right back...Libertarians today are no better them democrats in almost all fashion except taxes...You want complete freedom to do what you want with out having consequences and refuse to pay for those that happen. It is like children demanding a new toy but refusing to work for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want the freedom to do what I want, yes.  I'll be responsible for my own decisions.  I work and have never taken a dime of welfare from this authoritarian government.  I don't want you to pay for any consequences of my decisions.  I mean this will all respect, you are a dirt bag liar, screw you ass hole.
Click to expand...

Oh bullshit. You wouldn't even hold yourself responsible when  your actions harm others. Or did you think people made laws just to inconvenience you?


----------



## RKMBrown

thanatos144 said:


> Oh bullshit. You wouldn't even hold yourself responsible when  your actions harm others. Or did you think people made laws just to inconvenience you?



How have my actions harmed others? What laws are you talking about? What do laws protecting people from assholes like you have to do with STEALING MY PAYCHECK TO PAY YOU TO SIT AROUND ON YOUR ASS?  Is that your "philosophy?"  Do nothing and live off the labors of others?


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit. You wouldn't even hold yourself responsible when  your actions harm others. Or did you think people made laws just to inconvenience you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How have my actions harmed others? What laws are you talking about? What do laws protecting people from assholes like you have to do with STEALING MY PAYCHECK TO PAY YOU TO SIT AROUND ON YOUR ASS?
Click to expand...


stealing your paychecks huh? I don't steal s***. in my state taxes are sales taxes. that's how we pay for things like police fire department you know those things you want to take advantage of yet not want to pay for yourself


----------



## RKMBrown

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit. You wouldn't even hold yourself responsible when  your actions harm others. Or did you think people made laws just to inconvenience you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How have my actions harmed others? What laws are you talking about? What do laws protecting people from assholes like you have to do with STEALING MY PAYCHECK TO PAY YOU TO SIT AROUND ON YOUR ASS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stealing your paychecks huh? I don't steal s***. in my state taxes are sales taxes. that's how we pay for things like police fire department you know those things you want to take advantage of yet not want to pay for yourself
Click to expand...


Same here in TX.  No State income tax. High five...

What does police, fire, and rescue have to do with this discussion?  We are talking about federal government program funding not state and local government.


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> How have my actions harmed others? What laws are you talking about? What do laws protecting people from assholes like you have to do with STEALING MY PAYCHECK TO PAY YOU TO SIT AROUND ON YOUR ASS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stealing your paychecks huh? I don't steal s***. in my state taxes are sales taxes. that's how we pay for things like police fire department you know those things you want to take advantage of yet not want to pay for yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same here in TX.  No State income tax. High five...
> 
> What does police, fire, and rescue have to do with this discussion?  We are talking about federal government program funding not state and local government.
Click to expand...


That what government is suppose to provide you fucking idiot! Thats what you are calling authoritarian.


----------



## RKMBrown

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> stealing your paychecks huh? I don't steal s***. in my state taxes are sales taxes. that's how we pay for things like police fire department you know those things you want to take advantage of yet not want to pay for yourself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same here in TX.  No State income tax. High five...
> 
> What does police, fire, and rescue have to do with this discussion?  We are talking about federal government program funding not state and local government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That what government is suppose to provide you fucking idiot! Thats what you are calling authoritarian.
Click to expand...


No it's not, you stupid lying pea brained dufus. I was talking about social security, medicare, federal welfare, etc...  Go back under your rock.


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same here in TX.  No State income tax. High five...
> 
> What does police, fire, and rescue have to do with this discussion?  We are talking about federal government program funding not state and local government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That what government is suppose to provide you fucking idiot! Thats what you are calling authoritarian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not, you stupid lying pea brained dufus. I was talking about social security and medicare.  Go back under your rock.
Click to expand...


Yet NONE of us was talking about that.... Just you......


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> RKMbrown, I have known quite a few folks who were adults at the time social security was enacted.  And not one single one of them was even advised, much less consulted and asked for imput and consent, before social security was enacted into law.   They were required to participate by an edict of government and not through any voluntary decision of their own.
> 
> That is NOT social contract.
> 
> Social contract can be the people of a city or state voting on a referendum that will become law IF there is a majority vote.  Or it can be a community organizing a volunteer fire department.   Or it can be a neighborhood organizing a neighborhood watch program.   But it is the people themselves mutually deciding what will and will not be of benefit to them and not government deciding that for them.
> 
> Now you seem to be unable to distinguish the difference between those two things, and I write this purely for the education of the few who do have the capacity to understand the difference between those two things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quibbling over terms.  As if the "contract" of "social security" is not a "social contract."
> 
> Why do you think you own the right to define the term "social contract?"
> 
> From websters:
> 
> Social Contract: an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each.
> 
> No mention of authorization. No mention of "vote."
> 
> Yes fire departments are funded and operate under a social contract.
> 
> SS is an insurance program managed by the US government by State and Federal Agencies under a different social contract.
Click to expand...


You again are as stubborn as some others in refusing to see what a definition says.



> Definition: The idea of the social contract is one of the foundations of the American political system. This is the belief that the state only exists to serve the will of the people, and they are the source of all political power enjoyed by the state. They can choose to give or withhold this power.
> Social Contract - Definition of Social Contract





> Bing Dictionary
> so·cial con·tract
> 
> 1.agreement of social rights and duties: an agreement among individual people in a society or between the people and their government that outlines the rights and duties of each party.





> Dictionary.com
> social contract
> noun
> 1.
> the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.
> 
> 2.
> an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole.



All of the above are the Lockean model adopted by the Founding Fathers and was written into the Constitution as they interpreted it.

American leftists, liberals, anarchists, progressives, Stattists, political class and Libertarians (big L) of course most reject the principle because all are authoritarian to the point of denying others the society they wish to have.

For the same reason the liberals/statists/progressives/leftists/political class among us refuse to define their beliefs in any substantive way I think mostly because it would be hugely embarrassing to do so - or - they know they cannot defend what they promote without looking like the hardcore authoritarians that they are.

There is no way that a mandate from the Federal government, like social security for instance, for which the people gave no consent, can be said to be social contract.   Not only did the people have no say whether it would be imposed upon us, but it violates every principle of social contract the Founders wrote into the Constitution.  At the State or local level, if the people deem it necessary, it would be legal.  At the Federal level, never.


----------



## peach174

There are quite a few in this Nation who do not seem understand the difference between State Government and Federal Government.
They seem to lump them together as one. 
How will we ever get well informed voters if they can't even understand the different roles that the States and Federal Governments have?


----------



## Foxfyre

peach174 said:


> There are quite a few in this Nation who do not seem understand the difference between State Government and Federal Government.
> They seem to lump them together as one.
> How will we ever get well informed voters if they can't even understand the different roles that the States and Federal Governments have?



We do seem to have a problem.

Nobody wants to even try to reach an agreement on defintions for:

Left Winger
Liberal
Progressive
Statist
Political Class
Libertarian
Anarchist
libtertarian
Classical Liberal
Right Winger
Conservative

We can't agree on a description of concepts like Social Contract or on any concepts of principle period.

We can't agree on what the Constitution says.

We can't agree on separate roles for the Federal, State, County, local government or mini-governments created by bylaws and/or agreed rules.

We can't agree on what liberty or freedom are.

But for sure everybody has strong opinions about the sins and greed and corruption and evil of the other guy and the moral superiority of their own group.  They just don't want to bring any discussion or good or bad, favorable or unfavorable, constructive or destruction concepts into that and refuse any attempt to do so.

And we wonder why there is such contention between members or groups of Congress and why intelligent conversation is so difficult to come by on a message board.


----------



## rightwinger

peach174 said:


> There are quite a few in this Nation who do not seem understand the difference between State Government and Federal Government.
> They seem to lump them together as one.
> How will we ever get well informed voters if they can't even understand the different roles that the States and Federal Governments have?



Some functions are best performed by local government, some are best performed by state governments and some by the federal government. Some are best not done by government at all

To pretend that our local and state governments are paradigms of virtue while the federal government is evil incarnate is just rightwing propaganda


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are quite a few in this Nation who do not seem understand the difference between State Government and Federal Government.
> They seem to lump them together as one.
> How will we ever get well informed voters if they can't even understand the different roles that the States and Federal Governments have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some functions are best performed by local government, some are best performed by state governments and some by the federal government. Some are best not done by government at all
> 
> To pretend that our local and state governments are paradigms of virtue while the federal government is evil incarnate is just rightwing propaganda
Click to expand...


Really?  I don't see anybody else here who has even suggested such a comparison of virtue other than you.  Why is it on your mind and not on the mind among those you most criticize, accuse, and blame?

To your credit you don't always claim moral superiority though.  Probably even more often you justify what your people do because those other guys' do it or did it too.

You just contradicted yourself though because earlier you were saying on this very thread something to the effect that it doesn't make any difference what level of government is involved because it is all government and we'll pay one or the other regardless.

Edit.  Ah yes, here it is - Post #1593



rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you asked...
> 
> Government programs allow people to survive while they are getting back on their feet. Food, Shelter, Healthcare
> Government programs also provide education, jobs training, childcare while you work or go to school. job placement services
> 
> 
> 
> Since we are talking feds, I'll assume by government you meant federal.
> 
> >>> Federal Government programs allow people to survive while they are getting back on their feet. Food, Shelter, Healthcare
> 
> So do local food banks, shelters, and free clinics.  Can you explain the difference between federal programs for same and local programs?  From what I can tell the primary difference is federal programs are unlimited in duration and not designed to wean people off assistance, by contrast they are designed to make people permanently dependent.
> 
> >>> Federal Government programs also provide education, jobs training, childcare while you work or go to school. job placement services
> 
> I can get all of that for free on the internet.  Why do we need hundreds of MASSIVE duplicate federal programs to provide education and jobs training for jobs that are being off-shored?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you guys obsessed with the Feds?
> 
> Government is Government is Government
> 
> It all comes out of our pocket
Click to expand...


----------



## peach174

I don't recall any rightwingers saying that city, towns or state governments are virtuous.
Our City of Benson has corruption just as much as other AZ. cities, as well as our State Government.
Tucson if full of corrupt politicians.
The local people are working at correcting this, at all levels of Government.
Benson just got a recall petition going on 2 of our corrupt city Council Members.
The people of Arizona are working at getting a recall petition on our Senators McCain and Flake.


----------



## dblack

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are quite a few in this Nation who do not seem understand the difference between State Government and Federal Government.
> They seem to lump them together as one.
> How will we ever get well informed voters if they can't even understand the different roles that the States and Federal Governments have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some functions are best performed by local government, some are best performed by state governments and some by the federal government. Some are best not done by government at all
> 
> To pretend that our local and state governments are paradigms of virtue while the federal government is evil incarnate is just rightwing propaganda
Click to expand...


Nah.. there's nothing magical about local governments that makes them more likely to get it right. It's just that when they're wrong, they don't take the rest of us down with them. When policies are local and limited, they're easier to correct if and when they go off the rails. National programs, on the other hand, put all our eggs in one basket and tend to commit us to long term solutions that often don't fit local needs.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> RKMbrown, I have known quite a few folks who were adults at the time social security was enacted.  And not one single one of them was even advised, much less consulted and asked for imput and consent, before social security was enacted into law.   They were required to participate by an edict of government and not through any voluntary decision of their own.
> 
> That is NOT social contract.
> 
> Social contract can be the people of a city or state voting on a referendum that will become law IF there is a majority vote.  Or it can be a community organizing a volunteer fire department.   Or it can be a neighborhood organizing a neighborhood watch program.   But it is the people themselves mutually deciding what will and will not be of benefit to them and not government deciding that for them.
> 
> Now you seem to be unable to distinguish the difference between those two things, and I write this purely for the education of the few who do have the capacity to understand the difference between those two things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quibbling over terms.  As if the "contract" of "social security" is not a "social contract."
> 
> Why do you think you own the right to define the term "social contract?"
> 
> From websters:
> 
> Social Contract: an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each.
> 
> No mention of authorization. No mention of "vote."
> 
> Yes fire departments are funded and operate under a social contract.
> 
> SS is an insurance program managed by the US government by State and Federal Agencies under a different social contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You again are as stubborn as some others in refusing to see what a definition says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bing Dictionary
> so·cial con·tract
> 
> 1.agreement of social rights and duties: an agreement among individual people in a society or between the people and their government that outlines the rights and duties of each party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dictionary.com
> social contract
> noun
> 1.
> the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.
> 
> 2.
> an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the above are the Lockean model adopted by the Founding Fathers and was written into the Constitution as they interpreted it.
> 
> American leftists, liberals, anarchists, progressives, Stattists, political class and Libertarians (big L) of course most reject the principle because all are authoritarian to the point of denying others the society they wish to have.
> 
> For the same reason the liberals/statists/progressives/leftists/political class among us refuse to define their beliefs in any substantive way I think mostly because it would be hugely embarrassing to do so - or - they know they cannot defend what they promote without looking like the hardcore authoritarians that they are.
> 
> There is no way that a mandate from the Federal government, like social security for instance, for which the people gave no consent, can be said to be social contract.   Not only did the people have no say whether it would be imposed upon us, but it violates every principle of social contract the Founders wrote into the Constitution.  At the State or local level, if the people deem it necessary, it would be legal.  At the Federal level, never.
Click to expand...


Then by "your" preferred definition of the term "social contract" you and I are in violent agreement.  Please recognize that anyone saying they like the idea of social contracts makes them sound like a socialist in the current public square.  The reason being, socialists have co-opted the term and bastardized it to cover forced authoritarian contracts, such as social security, welfare, and even the civil war amendments that were agreed to by the south only upon thread of death.   Our constitution has been bastardized to allow state and federal governments to take away our life, liberty, and happiness as long as they claim it was done with due process.  For example, call it a tax.  Because of personal income taxes, our federal government does not need to quibble with your version of social contracts.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are quibbling over terms.  As if the "contract" of "social security" is not a "social contract."
> 
> Why do you think you own the right to define the term "social contract?"
> 
> From websters:
> 
> Social Contract: an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each.
> 
> No mention of authorization. No mention of "vote."
> 
> Yes fire departments are funded and operate under a social contract.
> 
> SS is an insurance program managed by the US government by State and Federal Agencies under a different social contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You again are as stubborn as some others in refusing to see what a definition says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dictionary.com
> social contract
> noun
> 1.
> the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.
> 
> 2.
> an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the above are the Lockean model adopted by the Founding Fathers and was written into the Constitution as they interpreted it.
> 
> American leftists, liberals, anarchists, progressives, Stattists, political class and Libertarians (big L) of course most reject the principle because all are authoritarian to the point of denying others the society they wish to have.
> 
> For the same reason the liberals/statists/progressives/leftists/political class among us refuse to define their beliefs in any substantive way I think mostly because it would be hugely embarrassing to do so - or - they know they cannot defend what they promote without looking like the hardcore authoritarians that they are.
> 
> There is no way that a mandate from the Federal government, like social security for instance, for which the people gave no consent, can be said to be social contract.   Not only did the people have no say whether it would be imposed upon us, but it violates every principle of social contract the Founders wrote into the Constitution.  At the State or local level, if the people deem it necessary, it would be legal.  At the Federal level, never.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then by "your" preferred definition of the term "social contract" you and I are in violent agreement.  Please recognize that anyone saying they like the idea of social contracts makes them sound like a socialist in the current public square.  The reason being, socialists have co-opted the term and bastardized it to cover forced authoritarian contracts, such as social security, welfare, and even the civil war amendments that were agreed to by the south only upon thread of death.   Authoritarians and Socialists have bastardized our constitution to allow state and federal governments to take away our life, liberty, and happiness as long as they claim it was done with due process.  For example, call it a tax.
Click to expand...


We are not in any kind of agreement if you insist on calling programs like Medicare and Social Security social contract.  They are not.  They are authoritarian government dictates.  Social contract requires consent of the people--in order for social security or Medicare to be social contract the people would have decided they were desirable for mutual benefit and would have instructed the government to implement them.  That is not the way we got either program and that is why they both are the shaky boondoggles that they have become.

Taxes were to fund the necessary constitutionally authorized responsibilities of the Federal government.  That too was agreed via social contract.   Anything beyond that authorization and presumed by the government on its own arises out of overreach of an authoritarian government the Founders never intended the Federal government to be.

At the state, county, local, or group level, the Founders intended the people to be free to organize whatever sort of society they wished to have and, the Federal government would not interfere with that in any way other than to prevent the states from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other.


----------



## numan

RKMBrown said:


> ...have to do with STEALING MY PAYCHECK TO PAY YOU TO SIT AROUND ON YOUR ASS?  Is that your "philosophy?"  Do nothing and live off the labors of others?


It is my view that if the vast majority of humanity is not working to support me and others who are the finest flower of culture and civilization in our intense and subtle lucubrations, then there is really very little else that justifies their continued inconsequential existence.

.


----------



## RKMBrown

numan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...have to do with STEALING MY PAYCHECK TO PAY YOU TO SIT AROUND ON YOUR ASS?  Is that your "philosophy?"  Do nothing and live off the labors of others?
> 
> 
> 
> It is my view that if the vast majority of humanity is not working to support me and others who are the finest flower of culture and civilization in our intense and subtle lucubrations, then there is really very little else that justifies their continued inconsequential existence.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I salute your honesty, and look forward to the day I can throw you out into the street.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You again are as stubborn as some others in refusing to see what a definition says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the above are the Lockean model adopted by the Founding Fathers and was written into the Constitution as they interpreted it.
> 
> American leftists, liberals, anarchists, progressives, Stattists, political class and Libertarians (big L) of course most reject the principle because all are authoritarian to the point of denying others the society they wish to have.
> 
> For the same reason the liberals/statists/progressives/leftists/political class among us refuse to define their beliefs in any substantive way I think mostly because it would be hugely embarrassing to do so - or - they know they cannot defend what they promote without looking like the hardcore authoritarians that they are.
> 
> There is no way that a mandate from the Federal government, like social security for instance, for which the people gave no consent, can be said to be social contract.   Not only did the people have no say whether it would be imposed upon us, but it violates every principle of social contract the Founders wrote into the Constitution.  At the State or local level, if the people deem it necessary, it would be legal.  At the Federal level, never.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then by "your" preferred definition of the term "social contract" you and I are in violent agreement.  Please recognize that anyone saying they like the idea of social contracts makes them sound like a socialist in the current public square.  The reason being, socialists have co-opted the term and bastardized it to cover forced authoritarian contracts, such as social security, welfare, and even the civil war amendments that were agreed to by the south only upon thread of death.   Authoritarians and Socialists have bastardized our constitution to allow state and federal governments to take away our life, liberty, and happiness as long as they claim it was done with due process.  For example, call it a tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not in any kind of agreement if you insist on calling programs like Medicare and Social Security social contract.  They are not.  They are authoritarian government dictates.  Social contract requires consent of the people--in order for social security or Medicare to be social contract the people would have decided they were desirable for mutual benefit and would have instructed the government to implement them.  That is not the way we got either program and that is why they both are the shaky boondoggles that they have become.
> 
> Taxes were to fund the necessary constitutionally authorized responsibilities of the Federal government.  That too was agreed via social contract.   Anything beyond that authorization and presumed by the government on its own arises out of overreach of an authoritarian government the Founders never intended the Federal government to be.
> 
> At the state, county, local, or group level, the Founders intended the people to be free to organize whatever sort of society they wished to have and, the Federal government would not interfere with that in any way other than to prevent the states from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other.
Click to expand...


What part of by "your" preferred definition of the term "social contract" you and I are in violent agreement confused you?

What part of the general understanding by 99.99999% of all humans on the face of the planet that view social contracts to include mandated social programs for which you have no choice is confusing you?

Your choice of terms is "classical" not "modern."  Just as with the co-opting of the term liberalism you have to qualify which version you are talking about because they are clearly the opposite of each other.   You can't just stammer around and whine about the fact that the term has been bastardized by modern liberals.  Well, you can but it won't solve your stated goal of achieving a vocabulary that we can use.


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are quite a few in this Nation who do not seem understand the difference between State Government and Federal Government.
> They seem to lump them together as one.
> How will we ever get well informed voters if they can't even understand the different roles that the States and Federal Governments have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some functions are best performed by local government, some are best performed by state governments and some by the federal government. Some are best not done by government at all
> 
> To pretend that our local and state governments are paradigms of virtue while the federal government is evil incarnate is just rightwing propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  I don't see anybody else here who has even suggested such a comparison of virtue other than you.  Why is it on your mind and not on the mind among those you most criticize, accuse, and blame?
> 
> To your credit you don't always claim moral superiority though.  Probably even more often you justify what your people do because those other guys' do it or did it too.
> 
> You just contradicted yourself though because earlier you were saying on this very thread something to the effect that it doesn't make any difference what level of government is involved because it is all government and we'll pay one or the other regardless.
> 
> Edit.  Ah yes, here it is - Post #1593
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we are talking feds, I'll assume by government you meant federal.
> 
> >>> Federal Government programs allow people to survive while they are getting back on their feet. Food, Shelter, Healthcare
> 
> So do local food banks, shelters, and free clinics.  Can you explain the difference between federal programs for same and local programs?  From what I can tell the primary difference is federal programs are unlimited in duration and not designed to wean people off assistance, by contrast they are designed to make people permanently dependent.
> 
> >>> Federal Government programs also provide education, jobs training, childcare while you work or go to school. job placement services
> 
> I can get all of that for free on the internet.  Why do we need hundreds of MASSIVE duplicate federal programs to provide education and jobs training for jobs that are being off-shored?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you guys obsessed with the Feds?
> 
> Government is Government is Government
> 
> It all comes out of our pocket
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


My point is consistent...

Namely, that to break out the federal government as an entity to be despised is ridiculous. We pay for GOVERNMENT......period
Government is provided at different levels depending on what functions are performed. The key is to set the level of government that is most efficient. The local level is not always the most efficient


----------



## Pogo

Intense said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion is heated, and side tracked, yet it is rooted in the judgement of Liberal Philosophy. The direction the thread takes is in the hands of the participants. It is a philosophical discussion.
> 
> My take, personally, would be to distinguish between true Liberalism, which I have zero problem with,  and Statist Progressivism, which I find Totalitarian. The Statist Utopia is a Paradise for the ruling class, and the connected. It is Hell on Earth, for the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread _should_ rooted in philosophy, but most seem to want to continue to pollute the discussion with the same-old hackneyed bullshit terms, hanging on to them for dear life rather than dare to ever question them.  Then they wonder why they get nowhere.
> 
> "Why do people hate liberals"?  Because the man in the box tells them to.  What the man in the box doesn't tell them is what 'liberal' _means_.  That would be too much like understanding, and understanding is definitely not the objective of the man in the box.  His objective is getting you to engage you in the Two Minutes Hate.  You're not supposed to ask "why".    Ignorance is Strength.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread _should_ rooted in philosophy, but most seem to want to continue to pollute the discussion with the same-old hackneyed bullshit terms, hanging on to them for dear life rather than dare to ever question them.  Then they wonder why they get nowhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like stuff like this?
> 
> 
> *"Why do people hate liberals"?  Because the man in the box tells them to.  What the man in the box doesn't tell them is what 'liberal' means.  That would be too much like understanding, and understanding is definitely not the objective of the man in the box.  His objective is getting you to engage you in the Two Minutes Hate.  You're not supposed to ask "why".    Ignorance is Strength.*
> 
> As Individual Liberty is attacked and eroded away, this is your big concern? Freedom of Speech is an important tool, as much for the listener as for the speaker. You might want to consider that. Personally, I find those most offended by speech, and ideas, not their own, are out of balance. Life is about more than controlling others and bending them to anyone's will. Witness, and bearing witness of what you see,  is both a developed skill, and an obligation to conscience, at the least.
> 
> No construct is of more value, than the principle purpose it was created to preserve.
> 
> The point about the thread being rooted in Liberal Philosophy was in relation to the forum it is located in, and why.
Click to expand...


Perhaps I didn't convey the meaning.  I'm not even sure what your counterpoint is addressing. 

The passage you put in bold was sarcasm.  I already agree that this thread does belong in Philosophy; I'm simply observing, going back to the thread title "why do people hate liberals" -- that they don't... they hate what the man in the box _*describes *_to them as "liberals".  Which isn't the same thing, and I tried for a dozen posts here to make that point, only to deaf ears.

I'm saying most wags on this board, and in political discourse in general, aren't interested in what "liberalism" actually *is* or what "conservative" or "right" or "left" actually *mean*.  They're interested in flinging catchphrases in some vast political football game.  They're interested only in parroting the man in the box -- which means talk radio bloviators, demagogue political bloggers, TV talking heads, all those gadflies for whom truth is an inconvenience and fatuous insipid catchphrases are a godsend.  The objective of the man in the box is to demonize their (perceived) opponents for the purpose of eliminating them.  And of course, ratings.  But certainly it has nothing to do with discourse.

And I speak of that whole tactic sarcastically because the very idea of pushing a monologue where one entire side is eliminated -- as opposed to a balance of two sides' give-and-take _exchange _-- is bullshit.

"What is a Liberal?" is one question.  "What is the word _liberal _*used for* in contemporary discourse?" is quite another.   It was the latter that was alluded to in sarcasm.

But the idea of what this thread could be?  Sure, it definitely belongs in Philosophy.


----------



## Bfgrn

sitarro said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson? Woodrow "the racist" Wilson? JFK would be a Republican today. Clinton had both halves of Congress forcing him to sign the right bills, FDR? Who cares about FDR, why not bring up LBJ, another clueless figure head for war?
Click to expand...


Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

JFK would be a Republican today...REALLY? Today's GOP would propose Medicare? Civil Rights Bill?? A War on Poverty???

A big part of LBJ's Great Society was started by President Kennedy and the New Frontier.

Who was John F. Kennedy? The President who proposed and or planned the following:

Medicare
Civil Rights
The War on Poverty
*
Economy*

The addition of a temporary thirteen-week supplement to jobless benefits,

The extension of aid to the children of unemployed workers,

The redevelopment of distressed areas,

An increase in Social Security payments and the encouragement of earlier retirement,

An increase in the minimum wage and an extension in coverage,

The provision of emergency relief to feed grain farmers, and

The financing of a comprehensive homebuilding and slum clearance program.

*Labor*

Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1961 greatly expanded the FLSA's scope in the retail trade sector and increased the minimum wage 

An Executive Order was issued (1962) which provided federal employees with collective bargaining rights.

The Federal Salary Reform Act (1962) established the principle of maintaining federal white-collar wages at a level with those paid to employees performing similar jobs in private enterprises."

A Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act was passed (1962) to reform Federal white-collar statutory salary systems, adjust postal rates, and establish a standard for adjusting annuities under the Civil Service Retirement Act.

The Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (1962) established standards for hours, overtime compensation, and safety for employees working on federal and federally funded contracts and subcontracts.

A pilot program was launched to train and place youths in jobs.

Paid overtime was granted to workers on government financed construction jobs for work in excess of 40 hours.

*Education*

Scholarships and student loans were broadened under existing laws by Kennedy, and new means of specialized aid to education were invented or expanded by the president, including an increase in funds for libraries and school lunches, the provision of funds to teach the deaf, the handicapped, the retarded, and the exceptional child, the authorization of literacy training under Manpower Development, the allocation of President funds to stop dropouts, a quadrupling of vocational education, and working together with schools on delinquency. Altogether, these measures attacked serious educational problems and freed up local funds for use on general construction and salaries.

Various measures were introduced which aided educational television, college dormitories, medical education, and community libraries.

The Educational Television Facilities Act (1962) provided federal grants for new station construction, enabling in-class-room instructional television to operate in thousands of elementary schools, offering primarily religious instruction, music, and arts.

The Health Professions Educational Assistance Act (1963) provided $175 million over a three-year period for matching grants for the construction of facilities for teaching physicians, dentists, nurses, podiatrists, optometrists, pharmacists, and other health professionals. The Act also created a loan program of up to $2000 per annum for students of optometry, dentistry, and medicine.

The Vocational Education Act (1963) significantly increased enrollment in vocational education.

A law was enacted (1961) to encourage and facilitate the training of teachers of the deaf.

The Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 enlarged the scope of the Fulbright program while extending it geographically.

An estimated one-third of all major New Frontier programs made some form of education a vital element, and the Office of Education called it the most significant legislative period in its hundred-year history.

*Welfare*

Unemployment and welfare benefits were expanded.

In 1961, Social Security benefits were increased by 20% and provision for early retirement was introduced, enabling workers to retire at the age of sixty-two while receiving partial benefits.

The Social Security Amendments of 1961 permitted male workers to elect early retirement age 62, increased minimum benefits, liberalized the benefit payments to aged widow, widower, or surviving dependent parent, and also liberalized eligibility requirements and the retirement test.

The 1962 amendments to the Social Security Act authorized the federal government to reimburse states for the provision of social services.

The School Lunch Act was amended for authority to begin providing free meals in poverty-stricken areas.

A pilot food stamp program was launched (1961), covering six areas in the United States. In 1962, the program was extended to eighteen areas, feeding 240,000 people.

The Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962 provided self-employed people with a tax postponement for income set aside in qualified pension plans.

Various school lunch and school milk programs were extended, enabling 700,000 more children to enjoy a hot school lunch and eighty-five thousand more schools, child care centers, and camps to receive fresh milk.

ADC was extended to whole families (1961).

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) replaced the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, as coverage was extended to adults caring for dependent children.

A major revision of the public welfare laws was carried out, with a $300 million modernization which emphasized rehabilitation instead of relief.

A temporary antirecession supplement to unemployment compensation was introduced.

Food distribution to needy Americans was increased. In January 1961, the first executive order issued by Kennedy mandated that the Department of Agriculture increase the quantity and variety of foods donated for needy households. This executive order represented a shift in the Commodity Distribution Programs primary purpose, from surplus disposal to that of providing nutritious foods to low-income households.

Social Security benefits were extended to an additional five million Americans.

The Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act (1962) provided self-employed people with a tax postponement for income set aside in qualified pension plans.

The Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 provided for greater Federal sharing in the cost of rehabilitative services to applicants, recipients, and persons likely to become applicants for public assistance. It increased the Federal share in the cost of public assistance payments, and permitted the States to combine the various categories into one category. The amendments also made permanent the 1961 amendment which extended aid to dependent children to cover children removed from unsuitable homes.

Federal funds were made available for the payment of foster care costs for AFDC-eligible children who had come into state custody.

An act was approved (1963) which extended for one year the period during which responsibility for the placement and foster care of dependent children, under the program of aid to families with dependent children under Title IV of the Social Security Act.

Federal civil service retirement benefits were index-linked to changes in the Consumer Price Index (1962).

*Civil rights*

Various measures were carried out by the Kennedy Justice Department to enforce court orders and existing legislation. The Kennedy Administration promoted a Voter Education Project which led to 688,800 between the 1st of April 1962 and the 1st of November 1964, while the Civil Rights Division brought over forty-two suits in four states in order to secure voting rights for blacks. In addition, Kennedy supported the anti-poll tax amendment, which cleared Congress in September 1962 (although it was not ratified until 1964 as the Twenty-fourth Amendment). As noted by one student of black voting in the South, in relation to the attempts by the Kennedy Administration to promote civil rights, Whereas the Eisenhower lawyers had moved deliberately, the Kennedy-Johnson attorneys pushed the judiciary far more earnestly.

Executive Order 10925 (issued in 1961) combined the federal employment and government contractor agencies into a unified Committee on Equal Employment opportunity (CEEO). This new committee helped to put an end to segregation and discriminatory employment practices (such as only employing African-Americans for low-skilled jobs) in a number of workplaces across the United States.

Discrimination in public housing was prohibited.

The Interstate Commerce Commission made Jim Crow illegal in interstate transportation, having been put under pressure to do so by both the Freedom Riders and the Department of Justice.

Employment of African-Americans in federal jobs such as in the Post office, the Navy, and the Veterans Administration as a result of the Kennedy Administrations affirmative action policies).

The Kennedy Administration forbade government contractors from discriminating against any applicant or employee for employment on the grounds of national origin, color, creed, or race.

The Plan for Progress was launched by the CEEO to persuade large employers to adopt equal opportunity practices. 268 firms with 8 million employees had signed on to this by 1964, while a nationwide study covering the period from May 1961 to June 1963 of 103 corporations showed a Negro gain from 28,940 to 42,738 salaried and from 171,021 to 198,161 hourly paid jobs.

*Housing*

The most comprehensive housing and urban renewal program in American history up until that point was carried out, including the first major provisions for middle-income housing, protection of urban open spaces, public mass transit, and private low-income housing.

Omnibus Housing Bill 1961. In March 1961 Kennedy sent Congress a special message, proposing an ambitious and complex housing program to spur the economy, revitalize cities, and provide affordable housing for middle- and low-income families. The bill proposed spending $3.19 billion and placed major emphasis on improving the existing housing supply, instead of on new housing starts, and creating a cabinet-level Department of Housing and Urban Affairs to oversee the programs. The bill also promised to make the Federal Housing Administration a full partner in urban renewal program by authorizing mortgage loans to finance rehabilitation of homes and urban renewal Committee on housing combined programs for housing, mass transportation, and open space land bills into a single bill.

Urban renewal grants were increased from $2 to $4 million, while an additional 100,000 units of public housing were constructed.

Opportunities were provided for coordinated planning of community development: technical assistance to state and local governments.

Under the Kennedy Administration, there was a change of focus from a wrecker ball approach to small rehabilitation projects in order to preserve existing urban textures.

Funds for housing for the elderly were increased.

Title V of the Housing Act was amended (1961) to make nonfarm rural residents eligible for direct housing loans from the Farmers Home Administration. These changes extended the housing program to towns with a population of up to 2,500.

The Senior Citizens Housing Act (1962) established loans for low-rent apartment projects which were designed to meet the needs of people age 62 and over.

*Unemployment*

To help the unemployed, Kennedy broadened the distribution of surplus food, created a pilot Food Stamp program for poor Americans, directed that preference be given to distressed areas in defense contracts, and expanded the services of U.S. Employment Offices.

Social security benefits were extended to each child whose father was unemployed.

The first accelerated public works program for areas of unemployment since the New Deal was launched.

The first full-scale modernization and expansion of the vocational education laws since 1946 were carried out.

Federal grants were provided to the states enabling them to extend the period covered by unemployment benefit.

The Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 authorized a three-year program aimed at retraining workers displaced by new technology. The bill did not exclude employed workers from benefiting and it authorized a training allowance for unemployed participants. Even though 200,000 people were recruited, there was minimal impact, comparatively. The Area Redevelopment Act, a $394 million spending package passed in 1961, followed a strategy of investing in the private sector to stimulate new job creation. It specifically targeted businesses in urban and rural depressed areas and authorized $4.5 million annually over four years for vocational training programs.

The 1963 amendments to the National Defense Education Act included $731 million in appropriations to states and localities maintaining vocational training programs.

*Health*

In 1963 Kennedy, who had a mentally ill sister named Rosemary, submitted the nation's first Presidential special message to Congress on mental health issues. Congress quickly passed the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act (P.L. 88-164), beginning a new era in Federal support for mental health services. The National Institute of Mental Health assumed responsibility for monitoring community mental health centers programs. This measure was a great success as there was a sixfold increase in people using Mental Health facilities.

A Medical Health Bill for the Aged (later known as Medicare) was proposed, but Congress failed to enact it.

The Community Health Services and Facilities Act (1961) increased the amount of funds available for nursing home construction and extended the research and demonstration grant program to other medical facilities.

The Health Services for Agricultural Migratory Workers Act (1962) established a program of federal grants for family clinics and other health services for migrant workers and their families.

The first major amendments to the food and drug safety laws since 1938 were carried out. The Drug Amendments of 1962 amended the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (1938) by strengthening the provisions related to the regulation of therapeutic drugs. The Act required evidence that new drugs proposed for marketing were both safe and effective, and required improved manufacturing processes and procedures.

The responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration were significantly enlarged by the Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendments (1962).

The Vaccination Assistance Act (1962) provided for the vaccination of millions of children against a number of diseases.

The Social Security Act Amendments of 1963 improved medical services for crippled children and established a new project grant program to improve prenatal care for women from low income families with very high risks of mental retardation and other birth defects. Authorizations for grants to the states under the Maternal and Child Health and Crippled Children's programs were also increased and a research grant program was added.

The Mental Retardation Facilities Construction Act of 1963 authorized federal support for the construction of university-affiliated training facilities, mental retardation research centers, and community service facilities for adults and children with mental retardation.

*Equal rights for women*

The Presidents Commission on the Status of Women was an advisory commission established on December 14, 1961, by Kennedy to investigate questions regarding women's equality in education, in the workplace, and under the law. The commission, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt until her death in 1962, was composed of 26 members including legislators and philanthropists who were active in women's rights issues. The main purpose of the committee was to document and examine employment policies in place for women. The commission's final report, American Woman (also known as the Peterson Report after the Commission's second chair, Esther Peterson), was issued in October 1963 and documented widespread discrimination against women in the workplace. Among the practices addressed by the group were labor laws pertaining to hours and wages, the quality of legal representation for women, the lack of education and counseling for working women, and federal insurance and tax laws that affected women's incomes. Recommendations included affordable child care for all income levels, hiring practices that promoted equal opportunity for women, and paid maternity leave.

In early 1960s, full-time working women were paid on average 59 percent of the earnings of their male counterparts. In order to eliminate some forms of sex-based pay discrimination, Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law on June 10, 1963. During the law's first ten years, 171,000 employees received back pay totaling about 84 million dollars.

*Environment*

The Clean Air Act (1963) expanded the powers of the federal government in preventing and controlling air pollution.

The first major additions to the National Park System since 1946 were made, which included the preservation of wilderness areas and a fund for future acquisitions.

The water pollution prevention program was doubled.

More aid was provided to localities to combat water pollution.

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962 reiterated and expanded upon previous authorizations for outdoor recreation.

*Crime*

Under Kennedy, the first significant package of anti crime bills since 1934 were passed. Amongst the Kennedy Administration's anti crime measures included the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act, which was signed into law on September 22, 1961. This program aimed to prevent youth from committing delinquent acts. In 1963, 288 mobsters were brought to trial by a team that was headed by Kennedy's brother, Robert.

wiki

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie  deliberate, contrived and dishonest  but the myth  persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson? Woodrow "the racist" Wilson? JFK would be a Republican today. Clinton had both halves of Congress forcing him to sign the right bills, FDR? Who cares about FDR, why not bring up LBJ, another clueless figure head for war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
> Daniel Patrick Moynihan
> 
> JFK would be a Republican today...REALLY? Today's GOP would propose Medicare? Civil Rights Bill?? A War on Poverty???
> 
> A big part of LBJ's Great Society was started by President Kennedy and the New Frontier.
> 
> Who was John F. Kennedy? The President who proposed and or planned the following:
> 
> Medicare
> Civil Rights
> The War on Poverty
> *
> Economy*
> 
> The addition of a temporary thirteen-week supplement to jobless benefits,
> 
> The extension of aid to the children of unemployed workers,
> 
> The redevelopment of distressed areas,
> 
> An increase in Social Security payments and the encouragement of earlier retirement,
> 
> An increase in the minimum wage and an extension in coverage,
> 
> The provision of emergency relief to feed grain farmers, and
> 
> The financing of a comprehensive homebuilding and slum clearance program.
> 
> *Labor*
> 
> Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1961 greatly expanded the FLSA's scope in the retail trade sector and increased the minimum wage
> 
> An Executive Order was issued (1962) which provided federal employees with collective bargaining rights.
> 
> The Federal Salary Reform Act (1962) established the principle of &#8220;maintaining federal white-collar wages at a level with those paid to employees performing similar jobs in private enterprises."
> 
> A Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act was passed (1962) to reform Federal white-collar statutory salary systems, adjust postal rates, and establish a standard for adjusting annuities under the Civil Service Retirement Act.
> 
> The Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (1962) established &#8220;standards for hours, overtime compensation, and safety for employees working on federal and federally funded contracts and subcontracts&#8221;.
> 
> A pilot program was launched to train and place youths in jobs.
> 
> Paid overtime was granted to workers on government financed construction jobs for work in excess of 40 hours.
> 
> *Education*
> 
> Scholarships and student loans were broadened under existing laws by Kennedy, and new means of specialized aid to education were invented or expanded by the president, including an increase in funds for libraries and school lunches, the provision of funds to teach the deaf, the handicapped, the retarded, and the exceptional child, the authorization of literacy training under Manpower Development, the allocation of President funds to stop dropouts, a quadrupling of vocational education, and working together with schools on delinquency. Altogether, these measures attacked serious educational problems and freed up local funds for use on general construction and salaries.
> 
> Various measures were introduced which aided educational television, college dormitories, medical education, and community libraries.
> 
> The Educational Television Facilities Act (1962) provided federal grants for new station construction, enabling in-class-room instructional television to operate in thousands of elementary schools, offering primarily religious instruction, music, and arts.
> 
> The Health Professions Educational Assistance Act (1963) provided $175 million over a three-year period for matching grants for the construction of facilities for teaching physicians, dentists, nurses, podiatrists, optometrists, pharmacists, and other health professionals. The Act also created a loan program of up to $2000 per annum for students of optometry, dentistry, and medicine.
> 
> The Vocational Education Act (1963) significantly increased enrollment in vocational education.
> 
> A law was enacted (1961) to encourage and facilitate the training of teachers of the deaf.
> 
> The Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 enlarged the scope of the Fulbright program while extending it geographically.
> 
> An estimated one-third of all major New Frontier programs made some form of education a vital element, and the Office of Education called it &#8220;the most significant legislative period in its hundred-year history&#8221;.
> 
> *Welfare*
> 
> Unemployment and welfare benefits were expanded.
> 
> In 1961, Social Security benefits were increased by 20% and provision for early retirement was introduced, enabling workers to retire at the age of sixty-two while receiving partial benefits.
> 
> The Social Security Amendments of 1961 permitted male workers to elect early retirement age 62, increased minimum benefits, liberalized the benefit payments to aged widow, widower, or surviving dependent parent, and also liberalized eligibility requirements and the retirement test.
> 
> The 1962 amendments to the Social Security Act authorized the federal government to reimburse states for the provision of social services.
> 
> The School Lunch Act was amended for authority to begin providing free meals in poverty-stricken areas.
> 
> A pilot food stamp program was launched (1961), covering six areas in the United States. In 1962, the program was extended to eighteen areas, feeding 240,000 people.
> 
> The Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962 provided self-employed people with a tax postponement for income set aside in qualified pension plans.
> 
> Various school lunch and school milk programs were extended, &#8220;enabling 700,000 more children to enjoy a hot school lunch and eighty-five thousand more schools, child care centers, and camps to receive fresh milk&#8221;.
> 
> ADC was extended to whole families (1961).
> 
> Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) replaced the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, as coverage was extended to adults caring for dependent children.
> 
> A major revision of the public welfare laws was carried out, with a $300 million modernization which emphasized rehabilitation instead of relief&#8221;.
> 
> A temporary antirecession supplement to unemployment compensation was introduced.
> 
> Food distribution to needy Americans was increased. In January 1961, the first executive order issued by Kennedy mandated that the Department of Agriculture increase the quantity and variety of foods donated for needy households. This executive order represented a shift in the Commodity Distribution Programs&#8217; primary purpose, from surplus disposal to that of providing nutritious foods to low-income households.
> 
> Social Security benefits were extended to an additional five million Americans.
> 
> The Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act (1962) provided self-employed people with a tax postponement for income set aside in qualified pension plans.
> 
> The Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 provided for greater Federal sharing in the cost of rehabilitative services to applicants, recipients, and persons likely to become applicants for public assistance. It increased the Federal share in the cost of public assistance payments, and permitted the States to combine the various categories into one category. The amendments also made permanent the 1961 amendment which extended aid to dependent children to cover children removed from unsuitable homes.
> 
> Federal funds were made available for the payment of foster care costs for AFDC-eligible children who had come into state custody.
> 
> An act was approved (1963) which extended for one year the period during which responsibility for the placement and foster care of dependent children, under the program of aid to families with dependent children under Title IV of the Social Security Act.
> 
> Federal civil service retirement benefits were index-linked to changes in the Consumer Price Index (1962).
> 
> *Civil rights*
> 
> Various measures were carried out by the Kennedy Justice Department to enforce court orders and existing legislation. The Kennedy Administration promoted a Voter Education Project which led to 688,800 between the 1st of April 1962 and the 1st of November 1964, while the Civil Rights Division brought over forty-two suits in four states in order to secure voting rights for blacks. In addition, Kennedy supported the anti-poll tax amendment, which cleared Congress in September 1962 (although it was not ratified until 1964 as the Twenty-fourth Amendment). As noted by one student of black voting in the South, in relation to the attempts by the Kennedy Administration to promote civil rights, &#8220;Whereas the Eisenhower lawyers had moved deliberately, the Kennedy-Johnson attorneys pushed the judiciary far more earnestly.&#8221;
> 
> Executive Order 10925 (issued in 1961) combined the federal employment and government contractor agencies into a unified Committee on Equal Employment opportunity (CEEO). This new committee helped to put an end to segregation and discriminatory employment practices (such as only employing African-Americans for low-skilled jobs) in a number of workplaces across the United States.
> 
> Discrimination in public housing was prohibited.
> 
> The Interstate Commerce Commission made Jim Crow illegal in interstate transportation, having been put under pressure to do so by both the Freedom Riders and the Department of Justice.
> 
> Employment of African-Americans in federal jobs such as in the Post office, the Navy, and the Veterans Administration as a result of the Kennedy Administration&#8217;s affirmative action policies).
> 
> The Kennedy Administration forbade government contractors from discriminating against any applicant or employee for employment on the grounds of national origin, color, creed, or race.
> 
> The Plan for Progress was launched by the CEEO to persuade large employers to adopt equal opportunity practices. 268 firms with 8 million employees had signed on to this by 1964, while a nationwide study covering the period from May 1961 to June 1963 of 103 corporations &#8220;showed a Negro gain from 28,940 to 42,738 salaried and from 171,021 to 198,161 hourly paid jobs&#8221;.
> 
> *Housing*
> 
> The most comprehensive housing and urban renewal program in American history up until that point was carried out, including the first major provisions for middle-income housing, protection of urban open spaces, public mass transit, and private low-income housing.
> 
> Omnibus Housing Bill 1961. In March 1961 Kennedy sent Congress a special message, proposing an ambitious and complex housing program to spur the economy, revitalize cities, and provide affordable housing for middle- and low-income families. The bill proposed spending $3.19 billion and placed major emphasis on improving the existing housing supply, instead of on new housing starts, and creating a cabinet-level Department of Housing and Urban Affairs to oversee the programs. The bill also promised to make the Federal Housing Administration a full partner in urban renewal program by authorizing mortgage loans to finance rehabilitation of homes and urban renewal Committee on housing combined programs for housing, mass transportation, and open space land bills into a single bill.
> 
> Urban renewal grants were increased from $2 to $4 million, while an additional 100,000 units of public housing were constructed.
> 
> Opportunities were provided for coordinated planning of community development: technical assistance to state and local governments.
> 
> Under the Kennedy Administration, there was a change of focus from a wrecker ball approach to small rehabilitation projects in order to preserve existing &#8216;urban textures&#8217;.
> 
> Funds for housing for the elderly were increased.
> 
> Title V of the Housing Act was amended (1961) to make nonfarm rural residents eligible for direct housing loans from the Farmers Home Administration. These changes extended the housing program to towns with a population of up to 2,500.
> 
> The Senior Citizens Housing Act (1962) established loans for low-rent apartment projects which were &#8220;designed to meet the needs of people age 62 and over&#8221;.
> 
> *Unemployment*
> 
> To help the unemployed, Kennedy broadened the distribution of surplus food, created a &#8220;pilot&#8221; Food Stamp program for poor Americans, directed that preference be given to distressed areas in defense contracts, and expanded the services of U.S. Employment Offices.
> 
> Social security benefits were extended to each child whose father was unemployed.
> 
> The first accelerated public works program for areas of unemployment since the New Deal was launched.
> 
> The first full-scale modernization and expansion of the vocational education laws since 1946 were carried out.
> 
> Federal grants were provided to the states enabling them to extend the period covered by unemployment benefit.
> 
> The Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 authorized a three-year program aimed at retraining workers displaced by new technology. The bill did not exclude employed workers from benefiting and it authorized a training allowance for unemployed participants. Even though 200,000 people were recruited, there was minimal impact, comparatively. The Area Redevelopment Act, a $394 million spending package passed in 1961, followed a strategy of investing in the private sector to stimulate new job creation. It specifically targeted businesses in urban and rural depressed areas and authorized $4.5 million annually over four years for vocational training programs.
> 
> The 1963 amendments to the National Defense Education Act included $731 million in appropriations to states and localities maintaining vocational training programs.
> 
> *Health*
> 
> In 1963 Kennedy, who had a mentally ill sister named Rosemary, submitted the nation's first Presidential special message to Congress on mental health issues. Congress quickly passed the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act (P.L. 88-164), beginning a new era in Federal support for mental health services. The National Institute of Mental Health assumed responsibility for monitoring community mental health centers programs. This measure was a great success as there was a sixfold increase in people using Mental Health facilities.
> 
> A Medical Health Bill for the Aged (later known as Medicare) was proposed, but Congress failed to enact it.
> 
> The Community Health Services and Facilities Act (1961) increased the amount of funds available for nursing home construction and extended the research and demonstration grant program to other medical facilities.
> 
> The Health Services for Agricultural Migratory Workers Act (1962) established &#8220;a program of federal grants for family clinics and other health services for migrant workers and their families&#8221;.
> 
> The first major amendments to the food and drug safety laws since 1938 were carried out. The Drug Amendments of 1962 amended the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (1938) by strengthening the provisions related to the regulation of therapeutic drugs. The Act required evidence that new drugs proposed for marketing were both safe and effective, and required improved manufacturing processes and procedures.
> 
> The responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration were significantly enlarged by the Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendments (1962).
> 
> The Vaccination Assistance Act (1962) provided for the vaccination of millions of children against a number of diseases.
> 
> The Social Security Act Amendments of 1963 improved medical services for crippled children and established a new project grant program to improve prenatal care for women from low income families with very high risks of mental retardation and other birth defects. Authorizations for grants to the states under the Maternal and Child Health and Crippled Children's programs were also increased and a research grant program was added.
> 
> The Mental Retardation Facilities Construction Act of 1963 authorized federal support for the construction of university-affiliated training facilities, mental retardation research centers, and community service facilities for adults and children with mental retardation.
> 
> *Equal rights for women*
> 
> The President&#8217;s Commission on the Status of Women was an advisory commission established on December 14, 1961, by Kennedy to investigate questions regarding women's equality in education, in the workplace, and under the law. The commission, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt until her death in 1962, was composed of 26 members including legislators and philanthropists who were active in women's rights issues. The main purpose of the committee was to document and examine employment policies in place for women. The commission's final report, American Woman (also known as the Peterson Report after the Commission's second chair, Esther Peterson), was issued in October 1963 and documented widespread discrimination against women in the workplace. Among the practices addressed by the group were labor laws pertaining to hours and wages, the quality of legal representation for women, the lack of education and counseling for working women, and federal insurance and tax laws that affected women's incomes. Recommendations included affordable child care for all income levels, hiring practices that promoted equal opportunity for women, and paid maternity leave.
> 
> In early 1960s, full-time working women were paid on average 59 percent of the earnings of their male counterparts. In order to eliminate some forms of sex-based pay discrimination, Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law on June 10, 1963. During the law's first ten years, 171,000 employees received back pay totaling about 84 million dollars.
> 
> *Environment*
> 
> The Clean Air Act (1963) expanded the powers of the federal government in preventing and controlling air pollution.
> 
> The first major additions to the National Park System since 1946 were made, which included the preservation of wilderness areas and a fund for future acquisitions.
> 
> The water pollution prevention program was doubled.
> 
> More aid was provided to localities to combat water pollution.
> 
> The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962 reiterated and expanded upon &#8220;previous authorizations for outdoor recreation.&#8221;
> 
> *Crime*
> 
> Under Kennedy, the first significant package of anti crime bills since 1934 were passed. Amongst the Kennedy Administration's anti crime measures included the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act, which was signed into law on September 22, 1961. This program aimed to prevent youth from committing delinquent acts. In 1963, 288 mobsters were brought to trial by a team that was headed by Kennedy's brother, Robert.
> 
> wiki
> 
> The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie &#8211; deliberate, contrived and dishonest &#8211; but the myth &#8211; persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
> President John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...

JFK voted down civil rights you fucking moron. Also it was republicans who put all 4 civil rights bill to a vote.


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson? Woodrow "the racist" Wilson? JFK would be a Republican today. Clinton had both halves of Congress forcing him to sign the right bills, FDR? Who cares about FDR, why not bring up LBJ, another clueless figure head for war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
> Daniel Patrick Moynihan
> 
> JFK would be a Republican today...REALLY? Today's GOP would propose Medicare? Civil Rights Bill?? A War on Poverty???
> 
> A big part of LBJ's Great Society was started by President Kennedy and the New Frontier.
> 
> Who was John F. Kennedy? The President who proposed and or planned the following:
> 
> Medicare
> Civil Rights
> The War on Poverty
> *
> Economy*
> 
> The addition of a temporary thirteen-week supplement to jobless benefits,
> 
> The extension of aid to the children of unemployed workers,
> 
> The redevelopment of distressed areas,
> 
> An increase in Social Security payments and the encouragement of earlier retirement,
> 
> An increase in the minimum wage and an extension in coverage,
> 
> The provision of emergency relief to feed grain farmers, and
> 
> The financing of a comprehensive homebuilding and slum clearance program.
> 
> *Labor*
> 
> Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1961 greatly expanded the FLSA's scope in the retail trade sector and increased the minimum wage
> 
> An Executive Order was issued (1962) which provided federal employees with collective bargaining rights.
> 
> The Federal Salary Reform Act (1962) established the principle of maintaining federal white-collar wages at a level with those paid to employees performing similar jobs in private enterprises."
> 
> A Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act was passed (1962) to reform Federal white-collar statutory salary systems, adjust postal rates, and establish a standard for adjusting annuities under the Civil Service Retirement Act.
> 
> The Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (1962) established standards for hours, overtime compensation, and safety for employees working on federal and federally funded contracts and subcontracts.
> 
> A pilot program was launched to train and place youths in jobs.
> 
> Paid overtime was granted to workers on government financed construction jobs for work in excess of 40 hours.
> 
> *Education*
> 
> Scholarships and student loans were broadened under existing laws by Kennedy, and new means of specialized aid to education were invented or expanded by the president, including an increase in funds for libraries and school lunches, the provision of funds to teach the deaf, the handicapped, the retarded, and the exceptional child, the authorization of literacy training under Manpower Development, the allocation of President funds to stop dropouts, a quadrupling of vocational education, and working together with schools on delinquency. Altogether, these measures attacked serious educational problems and freed up local funds for use on general construction and salaries.
> 
> Various measures were introduced which aided educational television, college dormitories, medical education, and community libraries.
> 
> The Educational Television Facilities Act (1962) provided federal grants for new station construction, enabling in-class-room instructional television to operate in thousands of elementary schools, offering primarily religious instruction, music, and arts.
> 
> The Health Professions Educational Assistance Act (1963) provided $175 million over a three-year period for matching grants for the construction of facilities for teaching physicians, dentists, nurses, podiatrists, optometrists, pharmacists, and other health professionals. The Act also created a loan program of up to $2000 per annum for students of optometry, dentistry, and medicine.
> 
> The Vocational Education Act (1963) significantly increased enrollment in vocational education.
> 
> A law was enacted (1961) to encourage and facilitate the training of teachers of the deaf.
> 
> The Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 enlarged the scope of the Fulbright program while extending it geographically.
> 
> An estimated one-third of all major New Frontier programs made some form of education a vital element, and the Office of Education called it the most significant legislative period in its hundred-year history.
> 
> *Welfare*
> 
> Unemployment and welfare benefits were expanded.
> 
> In 1961, Social Security benefits were increased by 20% and provision for early retirement was introduced, enabling workers to retire at the age of sixty-two while receiving partial benefits.
> 
> The Social Security Amendments of 1961 permitted male workers to elect early retirement age 62, increased minimum benefits, liberalized the benefit payments to aged widow, widower, or surviving dependent parent, and also liberalized eligibility requirements and the retirement test.
> 
> The 1962 amendments to the Social Security Act authorized the federal government to reimburse states for the provision of social services.
> 
> The School Lunch Act was amended for authority to begin providing free meals in poverty-stricken areas.
> 
> A pilot food stamp program was launched (1961), covering six areas in the United States. In 1962, the program was extended to eighteen areas, feeding 240,000 people.
> 
> The Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962 provided self-employed people with a tax postponement for income set aside in qualified pension plans.
> 
> Various school lunch and school milk programs were extended, enabling 700,000 more children to enjoy a hot school lunch and eighty-five thousand more schools, child care centers, and camps to receive fresh milk.
> 
> ADC was extended to whole families (1961).
> 
> Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) replaced the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, as coverage was extended to adults caring for dependent children.
> 
> A major revision of the public welfare laws was carried out, with a $300 million modernization which emphasized rehabilitation instead of relief.
> 
> A temporary antirecession supplement to unemployment compensation was introduced.
> 
> Food distribution to needy Americans was increased. In January 1961, the first executive order issued by Kennedy mandated that the Department of Agriculture increase the quantity and variety of foods donated for needy households. This executive order represented a shift in the Commodity Distribution Programs primary purpose, from surplus disposal to that of providing nutritious foods to low-income households.
> 
> Social Security benefits were extended to an additional five million Americans.
> 
> The Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act (1962) provided self-employed people with a tax postponement for income set aside in qualified pension plans.
> 
> The Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 provided for greater Federal sharing in the cost of rehabilitative services to applicants, recipients, and persons likely to become applicants for public assistance. It increased the Federal share in the cost of public assistance payments, and permitted the States to combine the various categories into one category. The amendments also made permanent the 1961 amendment which extended aid to dependent children to cover children removed from unsuitable homes.
> 
> Federal funds were made available for the payment of foster care costs for AFDC-eligible children who had come into state custody.
> 
> An act was approved (1963) which extended for one year the period during which responsibility for the placement and foster care of dependent children, under the program of aid to families with dependent children under Title IV of the Social Security Act.
> 
> Federal civil service retirement benefits were index-linked to changes in the Consumer Price Index (1962).
> 
> *Civil rights*
> 
> Various measures were carried out by the Kennedy Justice Department to enforce court orders and existing legislation. The Kennedy Administration promoted a Voter Education Project which led to 688,800 between the 1st of April 1962 and the 1st of November 1964, while the Civil Rights Division brought over forty-two suits in four states in order to secure voting rights for blacks. In addition, Kennedy supported the anti-poll tax amendment, which cleared Congress in September 1962 (although it was not ratified until 1964 as the Twenty-fourth Amendment). As noted by one student of black voting in the South, in relation to the attempts by the Kennedy Administration to promote civil rights, Whereas the Eisenhower lawyers had moved deliberately, the Kennedy-Johnson attorneys pushed the judiciary far more earnestly.
> 
> Executive Order 10925 (issued in 1961) combined the federal employment and government contractor agencies into a unified Committee on Equal Employment opportunity (CEEO). This new committee helped to put an end to segregation and discriminatory employment practices (such as only employing African-Americans for low-skilled jobs) in a number of workplaces across the United States.
> 
> Discrimination in public housing was prohibited.
> 
> The Interstate Commerce Commission made Jim Crow illegal in interstate transportation, having been put under pressure to do so by both the Freedom Riders and the Department of Justice.
> 
> Employment of African-Americans in federal jobs such as in the Post office, the Navy, and the Veterans Administration as a result of the Kennedy Administrations affirmative action policies).
> 
> The Kennedy Administration forbade government contractors from discriminating against any applicant or employee for employment on the grounds of national origin, color, creed, or race.
> 
> The Plan for Progress was launched by the CEEO to persuade large employers to adopt equal opportunity practices. 268 firms with 8 million employees had signed on to this by 1964, while a nationwide study covering the period from May 1961 to June 1963 of 103 corporations showed a Negro gain from 28,940 to 42,738 salaried and from 171,021 to 198,161 hourly paid jobs.
> 
> *Housing*
> 
> The most comprehensive housing and urban renewal program in American history up until that point was carried out, including the first major provisions for middle-income housing, protection of urban open spaces, public mass transit, and private low-income housing.
> 
> Omnibus Housing Bill 1961. In March 1961 Kennedy sent Congress a special message, proposing an ambitious and complex housing program to spur the economy, revitalize cities, and provide affordable housing for middle- and low-income families. The bill proposed spending $3.19 billion and placed major emphasis on improving the existing housing supply, instead of on new housing starts, and creating a cabinet-level Department of Housing and Urban Affairs to oversee the programs. The bill also promised to make the Federal Housing Administration a full partner in urban renewal program by authorizing mortgage loans to finance rehabilitation of homes and urban renewal Committee on housing combined programs for housing, mass transportation, and open space land bills into a single bill.
> 
> Urban renewal grants were increased from $2 to $4 million, while an additional 100,000 units of public housing were constructed.
> 
> Opportunities were provided for coordinated planning of community development: technical assistance to state and local governments.
> 
> Under the Kennedy Administration, there was a change of focus from a wrecker ball approach to small rehabilitation projects in order to preserve existing urban textures.
> 
> Funds for housing for the elderly were increased.
> 
> Title V of the Housing Act was amended (1961) to make nonfarm rural residents eligible for direct housing loans from the Farmers Home Administration. These changes extended the housing program to towns with a population of up to 2,500.
> 
> The Senior Citizens Housing Act (1962) established loans for low-rent apartment projects which were designed to meet the needs of people age 62 and over.
> 
> *Unemployment*
> 
> To help the unemployed, Kennedy broadened the distribution of surplus food, created a pilot Food Stamp program for poor Americans, directed that preference be given to distressed areas in defense contracts, and expanded the services of U.S. Employment Offices.
> 
> Social security benefits were extended to each child whose father was unemployed.
> 
> The first accelerated public works program for areas of unemployment since the New Deal was launched.
> 
> The first full-scale modernization and expansion of the vocational education laws since 1946 were carried out.
> 
> Federal grants were provided to the states enabling them to extend the period covered by unemployment benefit.
> 
> The Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 authorized a three-year program aimed at retraining workers displaced by new technology. The bill did not exclude employed workers from benefiting and it authorized a training allowance for unemployed participants. Even though 200,000 people were recruited, there was minimal impact, comparatively. The Area Redevelopment Act, a $394 million spending package passed in 1961, followed a strategy of investing in the private sector to stimulate new job creation. It specifically targeted businesses in urban and rural depressed areas and authorized $4.5 million annually over four years for vocational training programs.
> 
> The 1963 amendments to the National Defense Education Act included $731 million in appropriations to states and localities maintaining vocational training programs.
> 
> *Health*
> 
> In 1963 Kennedy, who had a mentally ill sister named Rosemary, submitted the nation's first Presidential special message to Congress on mental health issues. Congress quickly passed the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act (P.L. 88-164), beginning a new era in Federal support for mental health services. The National Institute of Mental Health assumed responsibility for monitoring community mental health centers programs. This measure was a great success as there was a sixfold increase in people using Mental Health facilities.
> 
> A Medical Health Bill for the Aged (later known as Medicare) was proposed, but Congress failed to enact it.
> 
> The Community Health Services and Facilities Act (1961) increased the amount of funds available for nursing home construction and extended the research and demonstration grant program to other medical facilities.
> 
> The Health Services for Agricultural Migratory Workers Act (1962) established a program of federal grants for family clinics and other health services for migrant workers and their families.
> 
> The first major amendments to the food and drug safety laws since 1938 were carried out. The Drug Amendments of 1962 amended the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (1938) by strengthening the provisions related to the regulation of therapeutic drugs. The Act required evidence that new drugs proposed for marketing were both safe and effective, and required improved manufacturing processes and procedures.
> 
> The responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration were significantly enlarged by the Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendments (1962).
> 
> The Vaccination Assistance Act (1962) provided for the vaccination of millions of children against a number of diseases.
> 
> The Social Security Act Amendments of 1963 improved medical services for crippled children and established a new project grant program to improve prenatal care for women from low income families with very high risks of mental retardation and other birth defects. Authorizations for grants to the states under the Maternal and Child Health and Crippled Children's programs were also increased and a research grant program was added.
> 
> The Mental Retardation Facilities Construction Act of 1963 authorized federal support for the construction of university-affiliated training facilities, mental retardation research centers, and community service facilities for adults and children with mental retardation.
> 
> *Equal rights for women*
> 
> The Presidents Commission on the Status of Women was an advisory commission established on December 14, 1961, by Kennedy to investigate questions regarding women's equality in education, in the workplace, and under the law. The commission, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt until her death in 1962, was composed of 26 members including legislators and philanthropists who were active in women's rights issues. The main purpose of the committee was to document and examine employment policies in place for women. The commission's final report, American Woman (also known as the Peterson Report after the Commission's second chair, Esther Peterson), was issued in October 1963 and documented widespread discrimination against women in the workplace. Among the practices addressed by the group were labor laws pertaining to hours and wages, the quality of legal representation for women, the lack of education and counseling for working women, and federal insurance and tax laws that affected women's incomes. Recommendations included affordable child care for all income levels, hiring practices that promoted equal opportunity for women, and paid maternity leave.
> 
> In early 1960s, full-time working women were paid on average 59 percent of the earnings of their male counterparts. In order to eliminate some forms of sex-based pay discrimination, Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law on June 10, 1963. During the law's first ten years, 171,000 employees received back pay totaling about 84 million dollars.
> 
> *Environment*
> 
> The Clean Air Act (1963) expanded the powers of the federal government in preventing and controlling air pollution.
> 
> The first major additions to the National Park System since 1946 were made, which included the preservation of wilderness areas and a fund for future acquisitions.
> 
> The water pollution prevention program was doubled.
> 
> More aid was provided to localities to combat water pollution.
> 
> The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962 reiterated and expanded upon previous authorizations for outdoor recreation.
> 
> *Crime*
> 
> Under Kennedy, the first significant package of anti crime bills since 1934 were passed. Amongst the Kennedy Administration's anti crime measures included the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act, which was signed into law on September 22, 1961. This program aimed to prevent youth from committing delinquent acts. In 1963, 288 mobsters were brought to trial by a team that was headed by Kennedy's brother, Robert.
> 
> wiki
> 
> The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie  deliberate, contrived and dishonest  but the myth  persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK voted down civil rights you fucking moron. Also it was republicans who put all 4 civil rights bill to a vote.
Click to expand...


Fucking moron? Are you talking about President Kennedy who PROPOSED the civil rights bill that became the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Civil Rights Act of 1964

*Origins*

The bill was called for by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963.






John F. Kennedy addresses the nation about Civil Rights on June 11, 1963


----------



## Wake

It's not so much hatred of all liberals, but a dislike of some or all of the tenets of liberalism. Some individual liberals, like individual conservatives, do or say things that earn the bile they receive. Hating all liberals, just because they're liberals... is foolish. Being generally annoyed by most people in a group is a reasonable position to hold, regardless of who they are. Liberalism, like conservatism, has agreeable aspects.

Every group has bad apples, and in my view it's better to strike at the ideology itself rather than those who cling to it.


----------



## RKMBrown

Wake said:


> It's not so much hatred of all liberals, but a dislike of some or all of the tenets of liberalism. Some individual liberals, like individual conservatives, do or say things that earn the bile they receive. Hating all liberals, just because they're liberals... is foolish. Being generally annoyed by most people in a group is a reasonable position to hold, regardless of who they are. Liberalism, like conservatism, has agreeable aspects.
> 
> Every group has bad apples, and in my view it's better to strike at the ideology itself rather than those who cling to it.



Name one agreeable aspect of modern liberalism.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not so much hatred of all liberals, but a dislike of some or all of the tenets of liberalism. Some individual liberals, like individual conservatives, do or say things that earn the bile they receive. Hating all liberals, just because they're liberals... is foolish. Being generally annoyed by most people in a group is a reasonable position to hold, regardless of who they are. Liberalism, like conservatism, has agreeable aspects.
> 
> Every group has bad apples, and in my view it's better to strike at the ideology itself rather than those who cling to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one agreeable aspect of modern liberalism.
Click to expand...


They piss off Conservatives


----------



## Wake

RKMBrown said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not so much hatred of all liberals, but a dislike of some or all of the tenets of liberalism. Some individual liberals, like individual conservatives, do or say things that earn the bile they receive. Hating all liberals, just because they're liberals... is foolish. Being generally annoyed by most people in a group is a reasonable position to hold, regardless of who they are. Liberalism, like conservatism, has agreeable aspects.
> 
> Every group has bad apples, and in my view it's better to strike at the ideology itself rather than those who cling to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one agreeable aspect of modern liberalism.
Click to expand...


I mentioned "liberalism." Not solely modern liberalism.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
> Daniel Patrick Moynihan
> 
> JFK would be a Republican today...REALLY? Today's GOP would propose Medicare? Civil Rights Bill?? A War on Poverty???
> 
> A big part of LBJ's Great Society was started by President Kennedy and the New Frontier.
> 
> Who was John F. Kennedy? The President who proposed and or planned the following:
> 
> Medicare
> Civil Rights
> The War on Poverty
> *
> Economy*
> 
> The addition of a temporary thirteen-week supplement to jobless benefits,
> 
> The extension of aid to the children of unemployed workers,
> 
> The redevelopment of distressed areas,
> 
> An increase in Social Security payments and the encouragement of earlier retirement,
> 
> An increase in the minimum wage and an extension in coverage,
> 
> The provision of emergency relief to feed grain farmers, and
> 
> The financing of a comprehensive homebuilding and slum clearance program.
> 
> *Labor*
> 
> Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1961 greatly expanded the FLSA's scope in the retail trade sector and increased the minimum wage
> 
> An Executive Order was issued (1962) which provided federal employees with collective bargaining rights.
> 
> The Federal Salary Reform Act (1962) established the principle of maintaining federal white-collar wages at a level with those paid to employees performing similar jobs in private enterprises."
> 
> A Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act was passed (1962) to reform Federal white-collar statutory salary systems, adjust postal rates, and establish a standard for adjusting annuities under the Civil Service Retirement Act.
> 
> The Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (1962) established standards for hours, overtime compensation, and safety for employees working on federal and federally funded contracts and subcontracts.
> 
> A pilot program was launched to train and place youths in jobs.
> 
> Paid overtime was granted to workers on government financed construction jobs for work in excess of 40 hours.
> 
> *Education*
> 
> Scholarships and student loans were broadened under existing laws by Kennedy, and new means of specialized aid to education were invented or expanded by the president, including an increase in funds for libraries and school lunches, the provision of funds to teach the deaf, the handicapped, the retarded, and the exceptional child, the authorization of literacy training under Manpower Development, the allocation of President funds to stop dropouts, a quadrupling of vocational education, and working together with schools on delinquency. Altogether, these measures attacked serious educational problems and freed up local funds for use on general construction and salaries.
> 
> Various measures were introduced which aided educational television, college dormitories, medical education, and community libraries.
> 
> The Educational Television Facilities Act (1962) provided federal grants for new station construction, enabling in-class-room instructional television to operate in thousands of elementary schools, offering primarily religious instruction, music, and arts.
> 
> The Health Professions Educational Assistance Act (1963) provided $175 million over a three-year period for matching grants for the construction of facilities for teaching physicians, dentists, nurses, podiatrists, optometrists, pharmacists, and other health professionals. The Act also created a loan program of up to $2000 per annum for students of optometry, dentistry, and medicine.
> 
> The Vocational Education Act (1963) significantly increased enrollment in vocational education.
> 
> A law was enacted (1961) to encourage and facilitate the training of teachers of the deaf.
> 
> The Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 enlarged the scope of the Fulbright program while extending it geographically.
> 
> An estimated one-third of all major New Frontier programs made some form of education a vital element, and the Office of Education called it the most significant legislative period in its hundred-year history.
> 
> *Welfare*
> 
> Unemployment and welfare benefits were expanded.
> 
> In 1961, Social Security benefits were increased by 20% and provision for early retirement was introduced, enabling workers to retire at the age of sixty-two while receiving partial benefits.
> 
> The Social Security Amendments of 1961 permitted male workers to elect early retirement age 62, increased minimum benefits, liberalized the benefit payments to aged widow, widower, or surviving dependent parent, and also liberalized eligibility requirements and the retirement test.
> 
> The 1962 amendments to the Social Security Act authorized the federal government to reimburse states for the provision of social services.
> 
> The School Lunch Act was amended for authority to begin providing free meals in poverty-stricken areas.
> 
> A pilot food stamp program was launched (1961), covering six areas in the United States. In 1962, the program was extended to eighteen areas, feeding 240,000 people.
> 
> The Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962 provided self-employed people with a tax postponement for income set aside in qualified pension plans.
> 
> Various school lunch and school milk programs were extended, enabling 700,000 more children to enjoy a hot school lunch and eighty-five thousand more schools, child care centers, and camps to receive fresh milk.
> 
> ADC was extended to whole families (1961).
> 
> Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) replaced the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, as coverage was extended to adults caring for dependent children.
> 
> A major revision of the public welfare laws was carried out, with a $300 million modernization which emphasized rehabilitation instead of relief.
> 
> A temporary antirecession supplement to unemployment compensation was introduced.
> 
> Food distribution to needy Americans was increased. In January 1961, the first executive order issued by Kennedy mandated that the Department of Agriculture increase the quantity and variety of foods donated for needy households. This executive order represented a shift in the Commodity Distribution Programs primary purpose, from surplus disposal to that of providing nutritious foods to low-income households.
> 
> Social Security benefits were extended to an additional five million Americans.
> 
> The Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act (1962) provided self-employed people with a tax postponement for income set aside in qualified pension plans.
> 
> The Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 provided for greater Federal sharing in the cost of rehabilitative services to applicants, recipients, and persons likely to become applicants for public assistance. It increased the Federal share in the cost of public assistance payments, and permitted the States to combine the various categories into one category. The amendments also made permanent the 1961 amendment which extended aid to dependent children to cover children removed from unsuitable homes.
> 
> Federal funds were made available for the payment of foster care costs for AFDC-eligible children who had come into state custody.
> 
> An act was approved (1963) which extended for one year the period during which responsibility for the placement and foster care of dependent children, under the program of aid to families with dependent children under Title IV of the Social Security Act.
> 
> Federal civil service retirement benefits were index-linked to changes in the Consumer Price Index (1962).
> 
> *Civil rights*
> 
> Various measures were carried out by the Kennedy Justice Department to enforce court orders and existing legislation. The Kennedy Administration promoted a Voter Education Project which led to 688,800 between the 1st of April 1962 and the 1st of November 1964, while the Civil Rights Division brought over forty-two suits in four states in order to secure voting rights for blacks. In addition, Kennedy supported the anti-poll tax amendment, which cleared Congress in September 1962 (although it was not ratified until 1964 as the Twenty-fourth Amendment). As noted by one student of black voting in the South, in relation to the attempts by the Kennedy Administration to promote civil rights, Whereas the Eisenhower lawyers had moved deliberately, the Kennedy-Johnson attorneys pushed the judiciary far more earnestly.
> 
> Executive Order 10925 (issued in 1961) combined the federal employment and government contractor agencies into a unified Committee on Equal Employment opportunity (CEEO). This new committee helped to put an end to segregation and discriminatory employment practices (such as only employing African-Americans for low-skilled jobs) in a number of workplaces across the United States.
> 
> Discrimination in public housing was prohibited.
> 
> The Interstate Commerce Commission made Jim Crow illegal in interstate transportation, having been put under pressure to do so by both the Freedom Riders and the Department of Justice.
> 
> Employment of African-Americans in federal jobs such as in the Post office, the Navy, and the Veterans Administration as a result of the Kennedy Administrations affirmative action policies).
> 
> The Kennedy Administration forbade government contractors from discriminating against any applicant or employee for employment on the grounds of national origin, color, creed, or race.
> 
> The Plan for Progress was launched by the CEEO to persuade large employers to adopt equal opportunity practices. 268 firms with 8 million employees had signed on to this by 1964, while a nationwide study covering the period from May 1961 to June 1963 of 103 corporations showed a Negro gain from 28,940 to 42,738 salaried and from 171,021 to 198,161 hourly paid jobs.
> 
> *Housing*
> 
> The most comprehensive housing and urban renewal program in American history up until that point was carried out, including the first major provisions for middle-income housing, protection of urban open spaces, public mass transit, and private low-income housing.
> 
> Omnibus Housing Bill 1961. In March 1961 Kennedy sent Congress a special message, proposing an ambitious and complex housing program to spur the economy, revitalize cities, and provide affordable housing for middle- and low-income families. The bill proposed spending $3.19 billion and placed major emphasis on improving the existing housing supply, instead of on new housing starts, and creating a cabinet-level Department of Housing and Urban Affairs to oversee the programs. The bill also promised to make the Federal Housing Administration a full partner in urban renewal program by authorizing mortgage loans to finance rehabilitation of homes and urban renewal Committee on housing combined programs for housing, mass transportation, and open space land bills into a single bill.
> 
> Urban renewal grants were increased from $2 to $4 million, while an additional 100,000 units of public housing were constructed.
> 
> Opportunities were provided for coordinated planning of community development: technical assistance to state and local governments.
> 
> Under the Kennedy Administration, there was a change of focus from a wrecker ball approach to small rehabilitation projects in order to preserve existing urban textures.
> 
> Funds for housing for the elderly were increased.
> 
> Title V of the Housing Act was amended (1961) to make nonfarm rural residents eligible for direct housing loans from the Farmers Home Administration. These changes extended the housing program to towns with a population of up to 2,500.
> 
> The Senior Citizens Housing Act (1962) established loans for low-rent apartment projects which were designed to meet the needs of people age 62 and over.
> 
> *Unemployment*
> 
> To help the unemployed, Kennedy broadened the distribution of surplus food, created a pilot Food Stamp program for poor Americans, directed that preference be given to distressed areas in defense contracts, and expanded the services of U.S. Employment Offices.
> 
> Social security benefits were extended to each child whose father was unemployed.
> 
> The first accelerated public works program for areas of unemployment since the New Deal was launched.
> 
> The first full-scale modernization and expansion of the vocational education laws since 1946 were carried out.
> 
> Federal grants were provided to the states enabling them to extend the period covered by unemployment benefit.
> 
> The Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 authorized a three-year program aimed at retraining workers displaced by new technology. The bill did not exclude employed workers from benefiting and it authorized a training allowance for unemployed participants. Even though 200,000 people were recruited, there was minimal impact, comparatively. The Area Redevelopment Act, a $394 million spending package passed in 1961, followed a strategy of investing in the private sector to stimulate new job creation. It specifically targeted businesses in urban and rural depressed areas and authorized $4.5 million annually over four years for vocational training programs.
> 
> The 1963 amendments to the National Defense Education Act included $731 million in appropriations to states and localities maintaining vocational training programs.
> 
> *Health*
> 
> In 1963 Kennedy, who had a mentally ill sister named Rosemary, submitted the nation's first Presidential special message to Congress on mental health issues. Congress quickly passed the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act (P.L. 88-164), beginning a new era in Federal support for mental health services. The National Institute of Mental Health assumed responsibility for monitoring community mental health centers programs. This measure was a great success as there was a sixfold increase in people using Mental Health facilities.
> 
> A Medical Health Bill for the Aged (later known as Medicare) was proposed, but Congress failed to enact it.
> 
> The Community Health Services and Facilities Act (1961) increased the amount of funds available for nursing home construction and extended the research and demonstration grant program to other medical facilities.
> 
> The Health Services for Agricultural Migratory Workers Act (1962) established a program of federal grants for family clinics and other health services for migrant workers and their families.
> 
> The first major amendments to the food and drug safety laws since 1938 were carried out. The Drug Amendments of 1962 amended the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (1938) by strengthening the provisions related to the regulation of therapeutic drugs. The Act required evidence that new drugs proposed for marketing were both safe and effective, and required improved manufacturing processes and procedures.
> 
> The responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration were significantly enlarged by the Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendments (1962).
> 
> The Vaccination Assistance Act (1962) provided for the vaccination of millions of children against a number of diseases.
> 
> The Social Security Act Amendments of 1963 improved medical services for crippled children and established a new project grant program to improve prenatal care for women from low income families with very high risks of mental retardation and other birth defects. Authorizations for grants to the states under the Maternal and Child Health and Crippled Children's programs were also increased and a research grant program was added.
> 
> The Mental Retardation Facilities Construction Act of 1963 authorized federal support for the construction of university-affiliated training facilities, mental retardation research centers, and community service facilities for adults and children with mental retardation.
> 
> *Equal rights for women*
> 
> The Presidents Commission on the Status of Women was an advisory commission established on December 14, 1961, by Kennedy to investigate questions regarding women's equality in education, in the workplace, and under the law. The commission, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt until her death in 1962, was composed of 26 members including legislators and philanthropists who were active in women's rights issues. The main purpose of the committee was to document and examine employment policies in place for women. The commission's final report, American Woman (also known as the Peterson Report after the Commission's second chair, Esther Peterson), was issued in October 1963 and documented widespread discrimination against women in the workplace. Among the practices addressed by the group were labor laws pertaining to hours and wages, the quality of legal representation for women, the lack of education and counseling for working women, and federal insurance and tax laws that affected women's incomes. Recommendations included affordable child care for all income levels, hiring practices that promoted equal opportunity for women, and paid maternity leave.
> 
> In early 1960s, full-time working women were paid on average 59 percent of the earnings of their male counterparts. In order to eliminate some forms of sex-based pay discrimination, Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law on June 10, 1963. During the law's first ten years, 171,000 employees received back pay totaling about 84 million dollars.
> 
> *Environment*
> 
> The Clean Air Act (1963) expanded the powers of the federal government in preventing and controlling air pollution.
> 
> The first major additions to the National Park System since 1946 were made, which included the preservation of wilderness areas and a fund for future acquisitions.
> 
> The water pollution prevention program was doubled.
> 
> More aid was provided to localities to combat water pollution.
> 
> The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962 reiterated and expanded upon previous authorizations for outdoor recreation.
> 
> *Crime*
> 
> Under Kennedy, the first significant package of anti crime bills since 1934 were passed. Amongst the Kennedy Administration's anti crime measures included the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act, which was signed into law on September 22, 1961. This program aimed to prevent youth from committing delinquent acts. In 1963, 288 mobsters were brought to trial by a team that was headed by Kennedy's brother, Robert.
> 
> wiki
> 
> The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie  deliberate, contrived and dishonest  but the myth  persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> 
> 
> JFK voted down civil rights you fucking moron. Also it was republicans who put all 4 civil rights bill to a vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fucking moron? Are you talking about President Kennedy who PROPOSED the civil rights bill that became the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964
> 
> *Origins*
> 
> The bill was called for by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John F. Kennedy addresses the nation about Civil Rights on June 11, 1963
Click to expand...


He did propose it since he fucking died before it.... ALL the civil rights bills were proposed and sponsored republican bills...I think you need to learn your party history.... The times your glorious JFK got to even vote on civil rights bills he voted no cause he was a racist pig like all democrats.


----------



## rightwinger

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK voted down civil rights you fucking moron. Also it was republicans who put all 4 civil rights bill to a vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking moron? Are you talking about President Kennedy who PROPOSED the civil rights bill that became the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964
> 
> *Origins*
> 
> The bill was called for by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John F. Kennedy addresses the nation about Civil Rights on June 11, 1963
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did propose it since he fucking died before it.... ALL the civil rights bills were proposed and sponsored republican bills...I think you need to learn your party history.... The times your glorious JFK got to even vote on civil rights bills he voted no cause he was a racist pig like all democrats.
Click to expand...


LBJ drove it home because the dead president had proposed it. After JFK was killed, LBJ was able to push unprecidented legislation because nobody would dare oppose a JFK initiative

To claim JFK would have approved of what passes for a Republican today is insulting


----------



## thanatos144

rightwinger said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking moron? Are you talking about President Kennedy who PROPOSED the civil rights bill that became the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964
> 
> *Origins*
> 
> The bill was called for by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John F. Kennedy addresses the nation about Civil Rights on June 11, 1963
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did propose it since he fucking died before it.... ALL the civil rights bills were proposed and sponsored republican bills...I think you need to learn your party history.... The times your glorious JFK got to even vote on civil rights bills he voted no cause he was a racist pig like all democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LBJ drove it home because the dead president had proposed it. After JFK was killed, LBJ was able to push unprecidented legislation because nobody would dare oppose a JFK initiative
> 
> To claim JFK would have approved of what passes for a Republican today is insulting
Click to expand...


LBJ drove it home so he could get those ******* voting democrat as he is quoted to have said.


----------



## RKMBrown

Wake said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not so much hatred of all liberals, but a dislike of some or all of the tenets of liberalism. Some individual liberals, like individual conservatives, do or say things that earn the bile they receive. Hating all liberals, just because they're liberals... is foolish. Being generally annoyed by most people in a group is a reasonable position to hold, regardless of who they are. Liberalism, like conservatism, has agreeable aspects.
> 
> Every group has bad apples, and in my view it's better to strike at the ideology itself rather than those who cling to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one agreeable aspect of modern liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mentioned "liberalism." Not solely modern liberalism.
Click to expand...


Modern liberalism is the opposite of classical liberalism.  You sort of have to qualify which you are talking about.


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one agreeable aspect of modern liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mentioned "liberalism." Not solely modern liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Modern liberalism is the opposite of classical liberalism.  You sort of have to qualify which you are talking about.
Click to expand...


Is that the lie you have to tell yourself?


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one agreeable aspect of modern liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mentioned "liberalism." Not solely modern liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Modern liberalism is the opposite of classical liberalism.  You sort of have to qualify which you are talking about.
Click to expand...


As a liberal, the biggest problem I have with conservatives is how unbelievable fucking stupid you people are. Conservatism is based on pure emotion. FEAR and HATE. It is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world. 

Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans.
Will Rogers 

Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism. 
Barry Goldwater 

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians


----------



## thanatos144

We live in a republic not a democracy


----------



## RKMBrown

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mentioned "liberalism." Not solely modern liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern liberalism is the opposite of classical liberalism.  You sort of have to qualify which you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the lie you have to tell yourself?
Click to expand...


Ok... how is that a lie? Are you addressing me or Wake?

Is wake a classical liberal or a modern liberal?   Can either of you compare and contrast the two?


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> We live in a republic not a democracy



Thank you for parroting the dogma and ignorance you've been programed to mimic.


----------



## Foxfyre

Be careful with nesting quotes RKM. You are attributing a comment to Thanatos that Bfgn made there.  See here:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/7601644-post1697.html

Thanttos KNOWs the difference between classical liberal and a modern American liberal.  Bfgn and others refuse to differentiate and he attributes the definition of modern American liberal as being conservative, i.e. authoritarian government.   There has never been a more authoritarian government in the history of this country than Barack Obama's and he is no modern conservative.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mentioned "liberalism." Not solely modern liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern liberalism is the opposite of classical liberalism.  You sort of have to qualify which you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a liberal, the biggest problem I have with conservatives is how unbelievable fucking stupid you people are. Conservatism is based on pure emotion. FEAR and HATE. It is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them.
> 
> Q: What is conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
> 
> Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
> 
> Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans.
> Will Rogers
> 
> Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
Click to expand...


>>> As a liberal, the biggest problem I have with conservatives is how unbelievable fucking stupid you people are. 

I would take you on in any intellectual challenge any day any time, name the time and place.

>>> Q: What is conservatism?
>>> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Democrat leaders are the aristocracy, conservatives are primarily composed of the successful family groups. Conservatives are for independence from the aristocracy.  The opposite of your answer you turd. 

>>> Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
>>> A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world. 

Conservatism "is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative." (wiki)  In our case tradition is American Tradition, more particularly liberty and justice as specified through our Constitution and federalist papers.   By your statements you are saying America was created as a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that was founded on deception and had no place in the modern world.  You are an Anti-American scum bag.

Robert Altmeyer is just a scum bag leftist Canadian professor.  Why cite that dirt bag?


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Be careful with nesting quotes RKM. You are attributing a comment to Thanatos that Bfgn made there.  See here:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/7601644-post1697.html
> 
> Thanttos KNOWs the difference between classical liberal and a modern American liberal.  Bfgn and others refuse to differentiate and he attributes the definition of modern American liberal as being conservative, i.e. authoritarian government.   There has never been a more authoritarian government in the history of this country than Barack Obama's and he is no modern conservative.



Yeah thantos replied to me asking if that was the lie I had to tell myself.  I figured he was jumping in to defend..  Not skipping my post to agree with my post... sigh... edited my post to see which it was.

Bush Jr. was also authoritarian... I don't think we've had a classical libertarian government for a very very long time.  Reagan turned it around a bit but that was only on the economy side... on the defense side Reagan was a bit of a war hawk, but no where near as much as Bush Jr.   I expect modern democrats to be authoritarian.  Anyone who would enslave tens of millions of people in welfare is a scum bag authoritarian of the worst kind.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We live in a republic not a democracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for parroting the dogma and ignorance you've been programed to mimic.
Click to expand...


Are you truly this ignorant of your own country?


----------



## numan

RKMBrown said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...have to do with STEALING MY PAYCHECK TO PAY YOU TO SIT AROUND ON YOUR ASS?  Is that your "philosophy?"  Do nothing and live off the labors of others?
> 
> 
> 
> It is my view that if the vast majority of humanity is not working to support me and others who are the finest flower of culture and civilization in our intense and subtle lucubrations, then there is really very little else that justifies their continued inconsequential existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I salute your honesty, and look forward to the day I can throw you out into the street.
Click to expand...

You would need to find me, first. · · 

I'll give you a hint -- I don't live in Texas.  · · 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern liberalism is the opposite of classical liberalism.  You sort of have to qualify which you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the lie you have to tell yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok... how is that a lie? Are you addressing me or Wake?
> 
> Is wake a classical liberal or a modern liberal?   Can either of you compare and contrast the two?
Click to expand...


Liberal is liberal....I was talking to you. You try to hide your progressive tendencies in word games like all liberals. I find libertarians are just liberals who lie to themselves.


----------



## RKMBrown

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We live in a republic not a democracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for parroting the dogma and ignorance you've been programed to mimic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you truly this ignorant of your own country?
Click to expand...


He's a modern lib, ignorance is a requirement.


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern liberalism is the opposite of classical liberalism.  You sort of have to qualify which you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a liberal, the biggest problem I have with conservatives is how unbelievable fucking stupid you people are. Conservatism is based on pure emotion. FEAR and HATE. It is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them.
> 
> Q: What is conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
> 
> Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
> 
> Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans.
> Will Rogers
> 
> Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>> As a liberal, the biggest problem I have with conservatives is how unbelievable fucking stupid you people are.
> 
> I would take you on in any intellectual challenge any day any time, name the time and place.
> 
> >>> Q: What is conservatism?
> >>> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
> 
> Democrat leaders are the aristocracy, conservatives are primarily composed of the successful family groups. Conservatives are for independence from the aristocracy.  The opposite of your answer you turd.
> 
> >>> Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
> >>> A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
> 
> Conservatism "is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative." (wiki)  In our case tradition is American Tradition, more particularly liberty and justice as specified through our Constitution and federalist papers.   By your statements you are saying America was created as a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that was founded on deception and had no place in the modern world.  You are an Anti-American scum bag.
> 
> Robert Altmeyer is just a scum bag leftist Canadian professor.  Why cite that dirt bag?
Click to expand...


There are different beliefs within liberalism. But ALL forms of liberalism are the antithesis of conservatism. Conservatism has been the root cause of ALL human problems, and ALL forms of authoritarianism. Liberalism is an antonym of authoritarianism.

Pick the topic and I will even let you go first.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be careful with nesting quotes RKM. You are attributing a comment to Thanatos that Bfgn made there.  See here:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/7601644-post1697.html
> 
> Thanttos KNOWs the difference between classical liberal and a modern American liberal.  Bfgn and others refuse to differentiate and he attributes the definition of modern American liberal as being conservative, i.e. authoritarian government.   There has never been a more authoritarian government in the history of this country than Barack Obama's and he is no modern conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah thantos replied to me asking if that was the lie I had to tell myself.  I figured he was jumping in to defend..  Not skipping my post to agree with my post... sigh... edited my post to see which it was.
> 
> Bush Jr. was also authoritarian... I don't think we've had a classical libertarian government for a very very long time.  Reagan turned it around a bit but that was only on the economy side... on the defense side Reagan was a bit of a war hawk, but no where near as much as Bush Jr.   I expect modern democrats to be authoritarian.  Anyone who would enslave tens of millions of people in welfare is a scum bag authoritarian of the worst kind.
Click to expand...


You are correct that we haven't had a classical liberal government in a very long time.  Reagan had a good understanding of free market principles re the economy and did some very good things there.  And he was a classical liberal in the sense that he understood the possibilities within the human spirit that was able to be free and he understood that government would never be a substitute for getting govrenment out of the way and just allowing the people to do what they do best.

I think he might have done more with say a reformer Congress as we had in 1995 through 2000.  He would like have been able to undo a lot of damage that has been done, but it was not to be.  We haven't had a classical liberal government since Teddy Roosevelt.  He turned the Constitution on its head to give government unlimited power and started a snowball more and more meddling and authoritarian government rolling that has accelerating and picking up size and mass ever sense.

The modern economy and eroding liberties we are suffering through is the legacy of all that and will only get worse unless we the people demand a return to the Founding principles and concepts.


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We live in a republic not a democracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for parroting the dogma and ignorance you've been programed to mimic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you truly this ignorant of your own country?
Click to expand...


I am not ignorant of my own country. America is a democratic society, our form of GOVERNMENT is a representative republic.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for parroting the dogma and ignorance you've been programed to mimic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you truly this ignorant of your own country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not ignorant of my own country. America is a democratic society, our form of GOVERNMENT is a representative republic.
> 
> "The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
Click to expand...


Educate yourself cause you are far to ignorant of any facts .


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a liberal, the biggest problem I have with conservatives is how unbelievable fucking stupid you people are. Conservatism is based on pure emotion. FEAR and HATE. It is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them.
> 
> Q: What is conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
> 
> Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
> 
> Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans.
> Will Rogers
> 
> Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>> As a liberal, the biggest problem I have with conservatives is how unbelievable fucking stupid you people are.
> 
> I would take you on in any intellectual challenge any day any time, name the time and place.
> 
> >>> Q: What is conservatism?
> >>> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
> 
> Democrat leaders are the aristocracy, conservatives are primarily composed of the successful family groups. Conservatives are for independence from the aristocracy.  The opposite of your answer you turd.
> 
> >>> Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
> >>> A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
> 
> Conservatism "is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative." (wiki)  In our case tradition is American Tradition, more particularly liberty and justice as specified through our Constitution and federalist papers.   By your statements you are saying America was created as a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that was founded on deception and had no place in the modern world.  You are an Anti-American scum bag.
> 
> Robert Altmeyer is just a scum bag leftist Canadian professor.  Why cite that dirt bag?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different beliefs within liberalism. But ALL forms of liberalism are the antithesis of conservatism. Conservatism has been the root cause of ALL human problems, and ALL forms of authoritarianism. Liberalism is an antonym of authoritarianism.
> 
> Pick the topic and I will even let you go first.
Click to expand...


Any strategy game or IQ test, you pick.  Or we could compare actual documented accomplishments.


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you truly this ignorant of your own country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not ignorant of my own country. America is a democratic society, our form of GOVERNMENT is a representative republic.
> 
> "The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Educate yourself cause you are far to ignorant of any facts .
Click to expand...


I just gave you the 'facts'. And the fact you right wing turds HATE the word democracy, HATE the whole concept of democracy, equality and liberty UNLESS you can add a disclaimer or restriction is PROOF conservatives are not liberal in ANY way, shape or form.

And although our form of government is a representative republic, the way we ELECT those representatives is PURE democracy.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be careful with nesting quotes RKM. You are attributing a comment to Thanatos that Bfgn made there.  See here:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/7601644-post1697.html
> 
> Thanttos KNOWs the difference between classical liberal and a modern American liberal.  Bfgn and others refuse to differentiate and he attributes the definition of modern American liberal as being conservative, i.e. authoritarian government.   There has never been a more authoritarian government in the history of this country than Barack Obama's and he is no modern conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah thantos replied to me asking if that was the lie I had to tell myself.  I figured he was jumping in to defend..  Not skipping my post to agree with my post... sigh... edited my post to see which it was.
> 
> Bush Jr. was also authoritarian... I don't think we've had a classical libertarian government for a very very long time.  Reagan turned it around a bit but that was only on the economy side... on the defense side Reagan was a bit of a war hawk, but no where near as much as Bush Jr.   I expect modern democrats to be authoritarian.  Anyone who would enslave tens of millions of people in welfare is a scum bag authoritarian of the worst kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct that we haven't had a classical liberal government in a very long time.  Reagan had a good understanding of free market principles re the economy and did some very good things there.  And he was a classical liberal in the sense that he understood the possibilities within the human spirit that was able to be free and he understood that government would never be a substitute for getting govrenment out of the way and just allowing the people to do what they do best.
> 
> I think he might have done more with say a reformer Congress as we had in 1995 through 2000.  He would like have been able to undo a lot of damage that has been done, but it was not to be.  We haven't had a classical liberal government since Teddy Roosevelt.  He turned the Constitution on its head to give government unlimited power and started a snowball more and more meddling and authoritarian government rolling that has accelerating and picking up size and mass ever sense.
> 
> The modern economy and eroding liberties we are suffering through is the legacy of all that and will only get worse unless we the people demand a return to the Founding principles and concepts.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>> As a liberal, the biggest problem I have with conservatives is how unbelievable fucking stupid you people are.
> 
> I would take you on in any intellectual challenge any day any time, name the time and place.
> 
> >>> Q: What is conservatism?
> >>> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
> 
> Democrat leaders are the aristocracy, conservatives are primarily composed of the successful family groups. Conservatives are for independence from the aristocracy.  The opposite of your answer you turd.
> 
> >>> Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
> >>> A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
> 
> Conservatism "is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative." (wiki)  In our case tradition is American Tradition, more particularly liberty and justice as specified through our Constitution and federalist papers.   By your statements you are saying America was created as a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that was founded on deception and had no place in the modern world.  You are an Anti-American scum bag.
> 
> Robert Altmeyer is just a scum bag leftist Canadian professor.  Why cite that dirt bag?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are different beliefs within liberalism. But ALL forms of liberalism are the antithesis of conservatism. Conservatism has been the root cause of ALL human problems, and ALL forms of authoritarianism. Liberalism is an antonym of authoritarianism.
> 
> Pick the topic and I will even let you go first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any strategy game or IQ test, you pick.  Or we could compare actual documented accomplishments.
Click to expand...


SO, you don't want to actually debate, you want to see who can beat their chest harder and faster.






"Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. She seldom has received much aid from the power of great men to whom she is rarely known & seldom welcome. She has no need of force to procure entrance into the minds of men. Error indeed has often prevailed by the assistance of power or force. Truth is the proper & sufficient antagonist to error.
Thomas Jefferson - Notes on Religion (October 1776), published in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson : 18161826 (1899) edited by Paul Leicester Ford, v. 2, p. 102.


----------



## rdean

Republicans aren't "people".  They are "sheeple".


----------



## RKMBrown

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the lie you have to tell yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok... how is that a lie? Are you addressing me or Wake?
> 
> Is wake a classical liberal or a modern liberal?   Can either of you compare and contrast the two?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberal is liberal....I was talking to you. You try to hide your progressive tendencies in word games like all liberals. I find libertarians are just liberals who lie to themselves.
Click to expand...

See fox?  I was right the first time.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not ignorant of my own country. America is a democratic society, our form of GOVERNMENT is a representative republic.
> 
> "The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Educate yourself cause you are far to ignorant of any facts .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just gave you the 'facts'. And the fact you right wing turds HATE the word democracy, HATE the whole concept of democracy, equality and liberty UNLESS you can add a disclaimer or restriction is PROOF conservatives are not liberal in ANY way, shape or form.
> 
> And although our form of government is a representative republic, the way we ELECT those representatives is PURE democracy.
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan
Click to expand...

I am not a liberal classic or otherwise smartass. You on the other hand are so ignorant you dont even know  your countries form of gpovernment.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are different beliefs within liberalism. But ALL forms of liberalism are the antithesis of conservatism. Conservatism has been the root cause of ALL human problems, and ALL forms of authoritarianism. Liberalism is an antonym of authoritarianism.
> 
> Pick the topic and I will even let you go first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any strategy game or IQ test, you pick.  Or we could compare actual documented accomplishments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO, you don't want to actually debate, you want to see who can beat their chest harder and faster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. She seldom has received much aid from the power of great men to whom she is rarely known & seldom welcome. She has no need of force to procure entrance into the minds of men. Error indeed has often prevailed by the assistance of power or force. Truth is the proper & sufficient antagonist to error.
> Thomas Jefferson - Notes on Religion (October 1776), published in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson : 18161826 (1899) edited by Paul Leicester Ford, v. 2, p. 102.
Click to expand...


You said... "[a]s a liberal, the biggest problem I have with conservatives is how unbelievable fucking stupid you people are."

If you meant conservatives can't debate modern liberal idiots you should have said that.


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok... how is that a lie? Are you addressing me or Wake?
> 
> Is wake a classical liberal or a modern liberal?   Can either of you compare and contrast the two?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal is liberal....I was talking to you. You try to hide your progressive tendencies in word games like all liberals. I find libertarians are just liberals who lie to themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See fox?  I was right the first time.
Click to expand...


About what that you need to lie to yourself to make excuses for your liberal view points like drugs and abortion?


----------



## RKMBrown

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal is liberal....I was talking to you. You try to hide your progressive tendencies in word games like all liberals. I find libertarians are just liberals who lie to themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> See fox?  I was right the first time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About what that you need to lie to yourself to make excuses for your liberal view points like drugs and abortion?
Click to expand...


Fox was defending you saying you knew the difference between modern and classical liberal.  Then you said there is no difference.

I have not expressed my views on drugs or abortion. What do you think they are?


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> See fox?  I was right the first time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About what that you need to lie to yourself to make excuses for your liberal view points like drugs and abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox was defending you saying you knew the difference between modern and classical liberal.  Then you said there is no difference.
> 
> I have not expressed my views on drugs or abortion. What do you think they are?[/QUOTEs]
> 
> I know the difference the result is the same. The only liberals that did good were the founders and all after them are scumbags
Click to expand...


----------



## RKMBrown

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> About what that you need to lie to yourself to make excuses for your liberal view points like drugs and abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox was defending you saying you knew the difference between modern and classical liberal.  Then you said there is no difference.
> 
> I have not expressed my views on drugs or abortion. What do you think they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know the difference the result is the same. The only liberals that did good were the founders and all after them are scumbags
Click to expand...


That's right Thantos no American since the founders has done any good and everyone but YOU is a scumbag.


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox was defending you saying you knew the difference between modern and classical liberal.  Then you said there is no difference.
> 
> I have not expressed my views on drugs or abortion. What do you think they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know the difference the result is the same. The only liberals that did good were the founders and all after them are scumbags
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right Thantos no American since the founders has done any good and everyone but YOU is a scumbag.
Click to expand...


Never said that ether but no liberal has done good in this country. Republicans have.... Hell the occasional democrat has as well... But no liberal has done good for this country since its founding.


----------



## Foxfyre

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> About what that you need to lie to yourself to make excuses for your liberal view points like drugs and abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox was defending you saying you knew the difference between modern and classical liberal.  Then you said there is no difference.
> 
> I have not expressed my views on drugs or abortion. What do you think they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know the difference the result is the same. The only liberals that did good were the founders and all after them are scumbags
Click to expand...


The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags.  I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.

But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .

 . . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart.  The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice.  Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.

And nobody wants to see that or admit it.


----------



## thanatos144

Foxfyre said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox was defending you saying you knew the difference between modern and classical liberal.  Then you said there is no difference.
> 
> I have not expressed my views on drugs or abortion. What do you think they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know the difference the result is the same. The only liberals that did good were the founders and all after them are scumbags
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags.  I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.
> 
> But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .
> 
> . . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart.  The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice.  Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.
> 
> And nobody wants to see that or admit it.
Click to expand...

If you do as the founders you are conserving it thus you are a conservative not a liberal because your not trying to liberate us from their constitution. Do you see the distinction?


----------



## RKMBrown

thanatos144 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know the difference the result is the same. The only liberals that did good were the founders and all after them are scumbags
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags.  I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.
> 
> But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .
> 
> . . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart.  The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice.  Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.
> 
> And nobody wants to see that or admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you do as the founders you are conserving it thus you are a conservative not a liberal because your not trying to liberate us from their constitution. Do you see the distinction?
Click to expand...

So you are saying the founders would have destroyed the government 1sec after creating it because their view was to change whatever government has been established? lol

You are confusing the concept of political view with the concept of change for change sake.


----------



## Foxfyre

thanatos144 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know the difference the result is the same. The only liberals that did good were the founders and all after them are scumbags
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags.  I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.
> 
> But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .
> 
> . . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart.  The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice.  Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.
> 
> And nobody wants to see that or admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you do as the founders you are conserving it thus you are a conservative not a liberal because your not trying to liberate us from their constitution. Do you see the distinction?
Click to expand...


Good observation.  The modern American conservative is the true classical liberal, i.e. they embrace the liberalism of the Founders.  But now the conservative does not try to reinvent but rather tries to identify, preverve, and protect--CONSERVE--those concepts the Founders wrote into the Constitution, preserve and promote the basic American values of personal responsibility and accountability.  The modern conservative promotes the right to exhibit social virtues that promote the best in society, and CONSERVE the concept of self governance rather than have our rights and privileges dictated to us by a authoritarian central government.

Many who call themselves conservative are not by the definition above.  But unless we can agree on the definitions, no discussion of the topic will take place.


----------



## Foxfyre

I suspect we can't even all agree on a definition of unalienable rights.

For me, an unalienable right is the freedom to be or do whatever requires no contribution or participation by another person.  Whenever another person is necessary to contribute or participate, it is no longer a right but rather a privilege, a component of social contract, or a coercion.

So, there is no unalienable right to:

Food
Shelter
Clothing
Transportation
Education
Healthcare
Electronic communications
Entertainment
Employment
Income
Or whatever other material things our heart desires.

An unalienable right, however, is to pursue and acquire any or all of these things through our own efforts or the voluntary generosity of others and/or to engage in social contract to make them available to ourselves and/or others.


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags.  I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.
> 
> But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .
> 
> . . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart.  The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice.  Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.
> 
> And nobody wants to see that or admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> If you do as the founders you are conserving it thus you are a conservative not a liberal because your not trying to liberate us from their constitution. Do you see the distinction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are saying the founders would have destroyed the government 1sec after creating it because their view was to change whatever government has been established? lol
> 
> You are confusing the concept of political view with the concept of change for change sake.
Click to expand...

 Do you have a mental dysfunction that makes it impossible to understand what is written???? The founders created a amendment system to make changes as needed.


----------



## thanatos144

Foxfyre said:


> I suspect we can't even all agree on a definition of unalienable rights.
> 
> For me, an unalienable right is the freedom to be or do whatever requires no contribution or participation by another person.  Whenever another person is necessary to contribute or participate, it is no longer a right but rather a privilege, a component of social contract, or a coercion.
> 
> So, there is no unalienable right to:
> 
> Food
> Shelter
> Clothing
> Transportation
> Education
> Healthcare
> Electronic communications
> Entertainment
> Employment
> Income
> Or whatever other material things our heart desires.
> 
> An unalienable right, however, is to pursue and acquire any or all of these things through our own efforts or the voluntary generosity of others and/or to engage in social contract to make them available to ourselves and/or others.



Life , Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


----------



## Foxfyre

thanatos144 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect we can't even all agree on a definition of unalienable rights.
> 
> For me, an unalienable right is the freedom to be or do whatever requires no contribution or participation by another person.  Whenever another person is necessary to contribute or participate, it is no longer a right but rather a privilege, a component of social contract, or a coercion.
> 
> So, there is no unalienable right to:
> 
> Food
> Shelter
> Clothing
> Transportation
> Education
> Healthcare
> Electronic communications
> Entertainment
> Employment
> Income
> Or whatever other material things our heart desires.
> 
> An unalienable right, however, is to pursue and acquire any or all of these things through our own efforts or the voluntary generosity of others and/or to engage in social contract to make them available to ourselves and/or others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life , Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...


Not happiness, but the pursuit of happiness.  Those were three things the Founders used as examples of unalienable rights though of course happiness can also be included in that when it doesn't require participation or contribution from other(s).

The problem with modern American liberalism is the presumption that people are entitled to those things at the expense of others - entitled as a fundamental right to have others provide many if not all of the things on that list up there when they do not provide them for themselves.

That is one of the single most grievous assaults on liberty and unalienable rights as has occured as the modern American liberal government systematically dismantles the concepts the Founders wrote into the Constitution and slowly but surely transfers more and more power to itself until it holds it all.


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> I suspect we can't even all agree on a definition of unalienable rights.
> 
> For me, an unalienable right is the freedom to be or do whatever requires no contribution or participation by another person.  Whenever another person is necessary to contribute or participate, it is no longer a right but rather a privilege, a component of social contract, or a coercion.



Right. The key aspect to a right be in 'unalienable' is that it doesn't require another person to actively facilitate. It is a freedom that you'd have even if there were no other people in the world. So, for example, the freedom of speech is unalienable. Even if there were no one else around, you would still be free to express yourself. The freedom to be heard, on the other hand, is not unalienable because it requires that someone else listen.

I don't know whether to blame the conflation around this on historians, or on Jefferson for being too subtle for his own good, but it's really frustrating to see the 'unalienable right' concept get muddied up with dumb debates over whether they are 'god-given' or produced by state mandate. As an atheist, I see neither as literally true. But it seems obvious that 'god-given' was an idiom for 'innate'. I can see why critics of Jefferson's views would have seized on the 'god-given' terminology and strawmanned it. But I'm confounded as to why so many of his supporters buy into the same misconception.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect we can't even all agree on a definition of unalienable rights.
> 
> For me, an unalienable right is the freedom to be or do whatever requires no contribution or participation by another person.  Whenever another person is necessary to contribute or participate, it is no longer a right but rather a privilege, a component of social contract, or a coercion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. The key aspect to a right be in 'unalienable' is that it doesn't require another person to actively facilitate. It is a freedom that you'd have even if there were no other people in the world. So, for example, the freedom of speech is unalienable. Even if there were no one else around, you would still be free to express yourself. The freedom to be heard, on the other hand, is not unalienable because it requires that someone else listen.
> 
> I don't know whether to blame the conflation around this on historians, or on Jefferson for being too subtle for his own good, but it's really frustrating to see the 'unalienable right' concept get muddied up with dumb debates over whether they are 'god-given' or produced by state mandate. As an atheist, I see neither as literally true. But it seems obvious that 'god-given' was an idiom for 'innate'. I can see why critics of Jefferson's views would have seized on the 'god-given' terminology and strawmanned it. But I'm confounded as to why so many of his supporters buy into the same misconception.
Click to expand...


Some of the great thinkers who identified and promoted a concept of unalienable rights were not religious men; some agnostics among the group, one or two Atheists.  But it is the concept and definition, not the label attached to it, that is important.

The non religious understood it as 'natural rights' or that which existed before government.  It was only logical that those who did accept and believe in God would attribute those rights as being God given.  Different terminology.  Same concept.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox was defending you saying you knew the difference between modern and classical liberal.  Then you said there is no difference.
> 
> I have not expressed my views on drugs or abortion. What do you think they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know the difference the result is the same. The only liberals that did good were the founders and all after them are scumbags
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags.  I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.
> 
> But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .
> 
> . . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart.  The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice.  Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.
> 
> And nobody wants to see that or admit it.
Click to expand...


Your total disregard for our ancestors is beyond startling, it is ignorance fueled by your narcissism.

The Progressive Movement was a huge BI-partisan ground swell movement of our ancestors who were confronting the stench and changing what America had become. The Gilded Age saw corporations gain way too much power in America. And a small group of elites ruled this country and controlled our government. A country our founding fathers believed should be controlled by We, The People.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> I suspect we can't even all agree on a definition of unalienable rights.
> 
> For me, an unalienable right is the freedom to be or do whatever requires no contribution or participation by another person.  Whenever another person is necessary to contribute or participate, it is no longer a right but rather a privilege, a component of social contract, or a coercion.
> 
> So, there is no unalienable right to:
> 
> Food
> Shelter
> Clothing
> Transportation
> Education
> Healthcare
> Electronic communications
> Entertainment
> Employment
> Income
> Or whatever other material things our heart desires.
> 
> An unalienable right, however, is to pursue and acquire any or all of these things through our own efforts or the voluntary generosity of others and/or to engage in social contract to make them available to ourselves and/or others.



Minor corrections for accuracy:

So, there is no unalienable right to [be provided with]:

Food
Shelter
Clothing
Transportation
Education
Healthcare
Electronic communications
Entertainment
Employment
Income
Or whatever other material things our heart desires [to obtain].

An unalienable right, however, is [the right] to pursue and acquire any or all of these things through our own efforts [and] the voluntary generosity of others.   Additionally, by engaging in [voluntary] social contracts [we should also be able] to make them available to ourselves and/or others[, such as through insurance plans, for the folks who prefer less risk in life].


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know the difference the result is the same. The only liberals that did good were the founders and all after them are scumbags
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags.  I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.
> 
> But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .
> 
> . . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart.  The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice.  Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.
> 
> And nobody wants to see that or admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your total disregard for our ancestors is beyond startling, it is ignorance fueled by your narcissism.
> 
> The Progressive Movement was a huge BI-partisan ground swell movement of our ancestors who were confronting the stench and changing what America had become. The Gilded Age saw corporations gain way too much power in America. And a small group of elites ruled this country and controlled our government. A country our founding fathers believed should be controlled by We, The People.
Click to expand...


Total disregard for our ancestors?  I think not.  The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that We the People should call all the shots and tell government what it is required to do and what it cannot do.  That concept no longer exists.

For instance, do you Bfgn, believe you are entitled to have your healthcare provided to you as a fundamental right if you cannot purchase it yourself from your own earnings?  Do you want the government to have the power to force me to pay for your healthcare if you cannot do that for yourself?


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags.  I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.
> 
> But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .
> 
> . . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart.  The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice.  Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.
> 
> And nobody wants to see that or admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> If you do as the founders you are conserving it thus you are a conservative not a liberal because your not trying to liberate us from their constitution. Do you see the distinction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good observation.  The modern American conservative is the true classical liberal, i.e. they embrace the liberalism of the Founders.  But now the conservative does not try to reinvent but rather tries to identify, preverve, and protect--CONSERVE--those concepts the Founders wrote into the Constitution, preserve and promote the basic American values of personal responsibility and accountability.  The modern conservative promotes the right to exhibit social virtues that promote the best in society, and CONSERVE the concept of self governance rather than have our rights and privileges dictated to us by a authoritarian central government.
> 
> Many who call themselves conservative are not by the definition above.  But unless we can agree on the definitions, no discussion of the topic will take place.
Click to expand...


I find it humorous that modern conservatives finally get around to embracing liberal values from 235 years ago

The key to liberalism is change. Change to meet the challenges of each succeeding generation. Our founding fathers were pushing a liberal value of all men are created equal. A common man was as good as royalty. 
Later liberals pushed for an end to slavery, worker rights, women's rights, civil rights, environmental protections, the rights of the handicapped and gay rights

But conservatives slap themselves on the back for finally embracing the values of liberals from235 years ago


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags.  I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.
> 
> But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .
> 
> . . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart.  The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice.  Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.
> 
> And nobody wants to see that or admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your total disregard for our ancestors is beyond startling, it is ignorance fueled by your narcissism.
> 
> The Progressive Movement was a huge BI-partisan ground swell movement of our ancestors who were confronting the stench and changing what America had become. The Gilded Age saw corporations gain way too much power in America. And a small group of elites ruled this country and controlled our government. A country our founding fathers believed should be controlled by We, The People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total disregard for our ancestors?  I think not.  The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that We the People should call all the shots and tell government what it is required to do and what it cannot do.  That concept no longer exists.
> 
> For instance, do you Bfgn, believe you are entitled to have your healthcare provided to you as a fundamental right if you cannot purchase it yourself from your own earnings?  Do you want the government to have the power to force me to pay for your healthcare if you cannot do that for yourself?
Click to expand...

I think being cared for when you are sick is a basic human right

Not just for the wealthy


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know the difference the result is the same. The only liberals that did good were the founders and all after them are scumbags
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags.  I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.
> 
> But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .
> 
> . . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart.  The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice.  Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.
> 
> And nobody wants to see that or admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your total disregard for our ancestors is beyond startling, it is ignorance fueled by your narcissism.
> 
> The Progressive Movement was a huge BI-partisan ground swell movement of our ancestors who were confronting the stench and changing what America had become. The Gilded Age saw corporations gain way too much power in America. And a small group of elites ruled this country and controlled our government. A country our founding fathers believed should be controlled by We, The People.
Click to expand...


You say that like building a company is a bad thing.  What a dumb ass.


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your total disregard for our ancestors is beyond startling, it is ignorance fueled by your narcissism.
> 
> The Progressive Movement was a huge BI-partisan ground swell movement of our ancestors who were confronting the stench and changing what America had become. The Gilded Age saw corporations gain way too much power in America. And a small group of elites ruled this country and controlled our government. A country our founding fathers believed should be controlled by We, The People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total disregard for our ancestors?  I think not.  The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that We the People should call all the shots and tell government what it is required to do and what it cannot do.  That concept no longer exists.
> 
> For instance, do you Bfgn, believe you are entitled to have your healthcare provided to you as a fundamental right if you cannot purchase it yourself from your own earnings?  Do you want the government to have the power to force me to pay for your healthcare if you cannot do that for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think being cared for when you are sick is a basic human right
> 
> Not just for the wealthy
Click to expand...


citizen #1 works his whole life saves up 1million dollars.. gets cancer spends half of his money on cancer treatment.

citizen #2 lives on welfare his whole life saves up nothing.. gets cancer and we spend the other half of citizen #1's savings on citizen #2's cancer treatment.

And you get a hard on for this scenario because you are most like citizen #2?

It's wrong because theft is wrong.


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your total disregard for our ancestors is beyond startling, it is ignorance fueled by your narcissism.
> 
> The Progressive Movement was a huge BI-partisan ground swell movement of our ancestors who were confronting the stench and changing what America had become. The Gilded Age saw corporations gain way too much power in America. And a small group of elites ruled this country and controlled our government. A country our founding fathers believed should be controlled by We, The People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total disregard for our ancestors?  I think not.  The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that We the People should call all the shots and tell government what it is required to do and what it cannot do.  That concept no longer exists.
> 
> For instance, do you Bfgn, believe you are entitled to have your healthcare provided to you as a fundamental right if you cannot purchase it yourself from your own earnings?  Do you want the government to have the power to force me to pay for your healthcare if you cannot do that for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think being cared for when you are sick is a basic human right
> 
> Not just for the wealthy
Click to expand...


Having the right to seek available care when you are sick is a basic human right, yes. 

But you having a 'right' to force me to provide or pay for your care is not.

Do you see the difference?

What is the difference between my paying for your healthcare and being forced to provide you clothing, shelter, food, and water all just as important to your health as my furnishing you healthcare?


----------



## Dragonlady

RKMBrown said:


> citizen #1 works his whole life saves up 1million dollars.. gets cancer spends half of his money on cancer treatment.
> 
> citizen #2 lives on welfare his whole life saves up nothing.. gets cancer and we spend the other half of citizen #1's savings on citizen #2's cancer treatment.
> 
> And you get a hard on for this scenario because you are most like citizen #2?
> 
> It's wrong because theft is wrong.



First off, it's not an all or nothing scenario.  1% of people are very wealthy, and another 1% are on welfare their whole lives.  What about the other 98% of the population?  How about the 15% of Americans who have no health insurance at all?  

What about the guy who has worked hard all of his life at low paying jobs and has no medical insurance.  Is he to be left to die because he his savings are inadequate to cover the cost of his treatment?  How about the fact that half of the bankruptciesi in the US are the result of medical costs?  

Taxation is price we pay to live in a first world country, with infrastructure, a stable government and a healthy well-educated work force, all of which improves the quality of life.  That is not theft.


----------



## numan

RKMBrown said:


> You say that like building a company is a bad thing.  What a dumb ass.


Building a company in a free enterprise environment where there is lively competition to create a better product is a good thing.

Building a multinational monopoly which interferes in government to rob and exploit the public and destroy its competition -- and which uses brainwashing advertising to make people believe an inferior product is "new and improved" -- that is definitely a bad thing.



RKMBrown said:


> It's wrong because theft is wrong.


I would hesitate to make such a blanket statement when it is a case of thieves who are being robbed. 
After all, why has Robin Hood been so popular for so many centuries?
I say, stick it to King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham !!

.


----------



## numan

'


thanatos144 said:


> We live in a republic not a democracy


We live in a militarized gangster state which has a thin veneer of republican formalism.

Only people with childish minds are taken in by the window-dressing.

.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags.  I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.
> 
> But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .
> 
> . . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart.  The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice.  Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.
> 
> And nobody wants to see that or admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your total disregard for our ancestors is beyond startling, it is ignorance fueled by your narcissism.
> 
> The Progressive Movement was a huge BI-partisan ground swell movement of our ancestors who were confronting the stench and changing what America had become. The Gilded Age saw corporations gain way too much power in America. And a small group of elites ruled this country and controlled our government. A country our founding fathers believed should be controlled by We, The People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total disregard for our ancestors?  I think not.  The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that We the People should call all the shots and tell government what it is required to do and what it cannot do.  That concept no longer exists.
> 
> For instance, do you Bfgn, believe you are entitled to have your healthcare provided to you as a fundamental right if you cannot purchase it yourself from your own earnings?  Do you want the government to have the power to force me to pay for your healthcare if you cannot do that for yourself?
Click to expand...


You right wings believe our only ancestors were our founding fathers followed by YOU self centered, self absorbed narcissists. Everyone that came in between was merely a void of really stupid people in your eyes.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total disregard for our ancestors?  I think not.  The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that We the People should call all the shots and tell government what it is required to do and what it cannot do.  That concept no longer exists.
> 
> For instance, do you Bfgn, believe you are entitled to have your healthcare provided to you as a fundamental right if you cannot purchase it yourself from your own earnings?  Do you want the government to have the power to force me to pay for your healthcare if you cannot do that for yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> I think being cared for when you are sick is a basic human right
> 
> Not just for the wealthy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> citizen #1 works his whole life saves up 1million dollars.. gets cancer spends half of his money on cancer treatment.
> 
> citizen #2 lives on welfare his whole life saves up nothing.. gets cancer and we spend the other half of citizen #1's savings on citizen #2's cancer treatment.
> 
> And you get a hard on for this scenario because you are most like citizen #2?
> 
> It's wrong because theft is wrong.
Click to expand...


Ah yes.......The Grasshoper and the Ant argument

I don't care if you live in a cardboard box under the interstate. If you get cancer, you deserve to be treated. We are the greatest society in the history of humanity. We are not Calcutta. 

Human dignity demands that we take care of our sick. Let them die is not an acceptable social policy for a great nation


----------



## Foxfyre

Dragonlady said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> citizen #1 works his whole life saves up 1million dollars.. gets cancer spends half of his money on cancer treatment.
> 
> citizen #2 lives on welfare his whole life saves up nothing.. gets cancer and we spend the other half of citizen #1's savings on citizen #2's cancer treatment.
> 
> And you get a hard on for this scenario because you are most like citizen #2?
> 
> It's wrong because theft is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, it's not an all or nothing scenario.  1% of people are very wealthy, and another 1% are on welfare their whole lives.  What about the other 98% of the population?  How about the 15% of Americans who have no health insurance at all?
> 
> What about the guy who has worked hard all of his life at low paying jobs and has no medical insurance.  Is he to be left to die because he his savings are inadequate to cover the cost of his treatment?  How about the fact that half of the bankruptciesi in the US are the result of medical costs?
> 
> Taxation is price we pay to live in a first world country, with infrastructure, a stable government and a healthy well-educated work force, all of which improves the quality of life.  That is not theft.
Click to expand...


So how about we just make Dragonlady responsible for that guy and her duty to keep him from dying?  After all you can get by without all that lovely money you prepared yourself to earn and that you worked hard for.  And if we take what you earn, then we can assign somebody else the duty to keep you from dying.   And we'll just ignore the fact that pyramid schemes are illegal because they simply can't deliver as the snakeoil salesman promises.

The best insurance for that guy is an economy that allows those who want to prosper to do so.  But if chooses or is unable to participate in that, there is absolutely nothing preventing YOU from voluntarily choosing to keep him from dying.   He won't care whether it is out of the goodness of your heart or forcibly confiscated from you.

The ability to use our property, intellect, gifts, talents, and abilities as we choose is what freedom looks like.  Forcing one part of society to support the other is not freedom.


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total disregard for our ancestors?  I think not.  The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that We the People should call all the shots and tell government what it is required to do and what it cannot do.  That concept no longer exists.
> 
> For instance, do you Bfgn, believe you are entitled to have your healthcare provided to you as a fundamental right if you cannot purchase it yourself from your own earnings?  Do you want the government to have the power to force me to pay for your healthcare if you cannot do that for yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> I think being cared for when you are sick is a basic human right
> 
> Not just for the wealthy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the right to seek available care when you are sick is a basic human right, yes.
> 
> But you having a 'right' to force me to provide or pay for your care is not.
> 
> Do you see the difference?
> 
> What is the difference between my paying for your healthcare and being forced to provide you clothing, shelter, food, and water all just as important to your health as my furnishing you healthcare?
Click to expand...


You are not paying for my healthcare. You are paying to live in the greatest society in history. A society that looks after it less fortunate. A society tha does not want its people to suffer needlessly 
You elect representatives to decide how that tax money is spent. Right now, our representatives have no hesitation to pay for a military that is stronger than the next 20 militaries combined and acts as a police force for the world

If given a choice, I would prefer that my tax dollar goes to care for the sick in this country than to pay to police every global conflict


----------



## numan

rightwinger said:


> I don't care if you live in a cardboard box under the interstate. If you get cancer, you deserve to be treated. We are the greatest society in the history of humanity.


Well, I suppose if you believe the flack you are fed in school and see on television....



rightwinger said:


> We are not Calcutta.


If you are living in a cardboard box under the decaying infrastructure of the interstate, you might not be so sure of that.



rightwinger said:


> Human dignity demands that we take care of our sick. Letting them die is not an acceptable social policy for a great nation


And you imagine that the United States is a great nation?

Many people imagine that the United States is ancient Greece and Rome all wrapped up in one, whereas, in fact, it is just Brazil.

.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total disregard for our ancestors?  I think not.  The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that We the People should call all the shots and tell government what it is required to do and what it cannot do.  That concept no longer exists.
> 
> For instance, do you Bfgn, believe you are entitled to have your healthcare provided to you as a fundamental right if you cannot purchase it yourself from your own earnings?  Do you want the government to have the power to force me to pay for your healthcare if you cannot do that for yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> I think being cared for when you are sick is a basic human right
> 
> Not just for the wealthy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the right to seek available care when you are sick is a basic human right, yes.
> 
> But you having a 'right' to force me to provide or pay for your care is not.
> 
> Do you see the difference?
> 
> What is the difference between my paying for your healthcare and being forced to provide you clothing, shelter, food, and water all just as important to your health as my furnishing you healthcare?
Click to expand...


Head down to the local emergency room and talk to the nurses.  They will tell you that the dregs of our society come there every day for free clothing, shelter, food, water, drugs, cell phones, ...  The dregs want it all they don't care whether it's all paid for via welfare based health care or any other welfare program.


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think being cared for when you are sick is a basic human right
> 
> Not just for the wealthy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having the right to seek available care when you are sick is a basic human right, yes.
> 
> But you having a 'right' to force me to provide or pay for your care is not.
> 
> Do you see the difference?
> 
> What is the difference between my paying for your healthcare and being forced to provide you clothing, shelter, food, and water all just as important to your health as my furnishing you healthcare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not paying for my healthcare. You are paying to live in the greatest society in history. A society that looks after it less fortunate. A society tha does not want its people to suffer needlessly
> You elect representatives to decide how that tax money is spent. Right now, our representatives have no hesitation to pay for a military that is stronger than the next 20 militaries combined and acts as a police force for the world
> 
> If given a choice, I would prefer that my tax dollar goes to care for the sick in this country than to pay to police every global conflict
Click to expand...


Okay great.  I will expect your check in the mail to help out with my mortgage, utilities,  cable bill, new tires for the Subaru as well as my healthcare premiums, and oh yes, my cell phone is obsolete and I really need a new one.  Oh, and let's throw in the landscaping project for the back yard.  So happy you see it as your duty to support me as I simply don't have the resources or the will to provide all that for myself.   I'm so happy that you see forced slavery as the price to live in the greatest society in history.  (Though I had been operating under the delusion that we had fought a war and passed a Constitutional amendment that sort of ended that sort of thing here.)


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think being cared for when you are sick is a basic human right
> 
> Not just for the wealthy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having the right to seek available care when you are sick is a basic human right, yes.
> 
> But you having a 'right' to force me to provide or pay for your care is not.
> 
> Do you see the difference?
> 
> What is the difference between my paying for your healthcare and being forced to provide you clothing, shelter, food, and water all just as important to your health as my furnishing you healthcare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Head down to the local emergency room and talk to the nurses.  They will tell you that the dregs of our society come there every day for free clothing, shelter, food, water, drugs, cell phones, ...  The dregs want it all they don't care whether it's all paid for via welfare based health care or any other welfare program.
Click to expand...


You are not making an effective argument. Emergency rooms are not an efficient way to dispense social services. Close down other venues to receive food, shelter and healthcare and emergency rooms are all you have left


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having the right to seek available care when you are sick is a basic human right, yes.
> 
> But you having a 'right' to force me to provide or pay for your care is not.
> 
> Do you see the difference?
> 
> What is the difference between my paying for your healthcare and being forced to provide you clothing, shelter, food, and water all just as important to your health as my furnishing you healthcare?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not paying for my healthcare. You are paying to live in the greatest society in history. A society that looks after it less fortunate. A society tha does not want its people to suffer needlessly
> You elect representatives to decide how that tax money is spent. Right now, our representatives have no hesitation to pay for a military that is stronger than the next 20 militaries combined and acts as a police force for the world
> 
> If given a choice, I would prefer that my tax dollar goes to care for the sick in this country than to pay to police every global conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay great.  I will expect your check in the mail to help out with my mortgage, utilities,  cable bill, new tires for the Subaru as well as my healthcare premiums, and oh yes, my cell phone is obsolete and I really need a new one.  Oh, and let's throw in the landscaping project for the back yard.  So happy you see it as your duty to support me as I simply don't have the resources or the will to provide all that for myself.   I'm so happy that you see forced slavery as the price to live in the greatest society in history.  (Though I had been operating under the delusion that we had fought a war and passed a Constitutional amendment that sort of ended that sort of thing here.)
Click to expand...


I am willing to provide you with a basic safety net. A place to live, food, clothing, healthcare...even a free education for your kids

If you are willing to give up all you have to settle for a lifestyle of poverty, I am willing to accept that


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not paying for my healthcare. You are paying to live in the greatest society in history. A society that looks after it less fortunate. A society tha does not want its people to suffer needlessly
> You elect representatives to decide how that tax money is spent. Right now, our representatives have no hesitation to pay for a military that is stronger than the next 20 militaries combined and acts as a police force for the world
> 
> If given a choice, I would prefer that my tax dollar goes to care for the sick in this country than to pay to police every global conflict
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay great.  I will expect your check in the mail to help out with my mortgage, utilities,  cable bill, new tires for the Subaru as well as my healthcare premiums, and oh yes, my cell phone is obsolete and I really need a new one.  Oh, and let's throw in the landscaping project for the back yard.  So happy you see it as your duty to support me as I simply don't have the resources or the will to provide all that for myself.   I'm so happy that you see forced slavery as the price to live in the greatest society in history.  (Though I had been operating under the delusion that we had fought a war and passed a Constitutional amendment that sort of ended that sort of thing here.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am willing to provide you with a basic safety net. A place to live, food, clothing, healthcare...even a free education for your kids
> 
> If you are willing to give up all you have to settle for a lifestyle of poverty, I am willing to accept that
Click to expand...


You mean give up all but what the average poor person in American has?  Trust me.  Mr. Foxfyre and I already do that and are currently living on less income than the average welfare family in the USA currently receives:



> The federal government now considers a family of four in New York City to be poor if its pre-tax income is below $37,900.Even with full medical coverage.
> 
> The calculation helps explain why newly revised Census Bureau figures hike the number of poor Americans to 49 million as of last year, further widening an already yawning gap between ordinary perceptions of poverty and how the government sees it.
> 
> This breathtaking number begs the question: What does it mean to be &#8220;poor&#8221; in the United States?
> 
> To the average American, the word &#8220;poverty&#8221; means significant material hardship and need. It means lack of a warm, dry home, recurring hunger and malnutrition, no medical care, worn-out clothes for the children. The mainstream media reinforce this view: The typical TV news story on poverty features a homeless family with kids living in the back of a van.
> 
> But poverty as the federal government defines it differs greatly from these images. Only 2 percent of the official poor are homeless. According to the government&#8217;s own data, the typical poor family lives in a house or apartment that&#8217;s not only in good repair but is larger than the homes of the average non-poor person in England, France or Germany.
> 
> The typical &#8220;poor&#8221; American experiences no material hardships, receives medical care whenever needed, has an ample diet and wasn&#8217;t hungry for even a single day the previous year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the nutritional quality of the diets of poor children is identical to that of upper middle class kids.
> 
> In America, about 80 percent of poor families have air conditioning, nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV, half have a computer and a third have a wide-screen LCD or plasma TV.
> 
> All these government statistics were based on the Census Bureau&#8217;s old definition of poverty. The new definition, released last week, stretches that gap between common-sense and government perspectives even further.
> 
> Previously, a family of four was considered poor if cash income was less than $22,800. The new definition sharply jerks up this threshold, especially in large cities.
> 
> Now, a family of four with full medical insurance, living in Oakland, can be considered &#8220;poor&#8221; if its yearly pre-tax income is below $42,500. In Washington, DC, the figure is $40,300; in Boston, $39,500; in New York, $37,900.
> 
> Remarkably, for the first time these new poverty thresholds are linked to an &#8220;escalator&#8221; that will boost them faster than inflation year after year. The income thresholds will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the actual living standards of the average American.
> Read more at:
> 'Poverty' Like We've Never Seen It



Further I am entitle to something yes for all the years we didn't have the money to pay our bills, when the grocery money ran out days before the next paycheck, when any major expense could wipe us out entirely?  There was no welfare help for us back then and you know what, we survived anyway.  And we were damn proud of what we earned and accomplished despite not having America provide us with what we didn't have.   So many of us were in that boat and we helped out each other, our families helped as they could, and we didn't expect to own anything until we had the means to pay for it.

So thanks.   We will eagerly look forward to your check in the mail.


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total disregard for our ancestors?  I think not.  The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that We the People should call all the shots and tell government what it is required to do and what it cannot do.  That concept no longer exists.
> 
> For instance, do you Bfgn, believe you are entitled to have your healthcare provided to you as a fundamental right if you cannot purchase it yourself from your own earnings?  Do you want the government to have the power to force me to pay for your healthcare if you cannot do that for yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> I think being cared for when you are sick is a basic human right
> 
> Not just for the wealthy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> citizen #1 works his whole life saves up 1million dollars.. gets cancer spends half of his money on cancer treatment.
> 
> citizen #2 lives on welfare his whole life saves up nothing.. gets cancer and we spend the other half of citizen #1's savings on citizen #2's cancer treatment.
> 
> And you get a hard on for this scenario because you are most like citizen #2?
> 
> It's wrong because theft is wrong.
Click to expand...


PROOF provided by RKMBrown that:

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.


----------



## RKMBrown

numan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that like building a company is a bad thing.  What a dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Building a company in a free enterprise environment where there is lively competition to create a better product is a good thing.
> 
> Building a multinational monopoly which interferes in government to rob and exploit the public and destroy its competition -- and which uses brainwashing advertising to make people believe an inferior product is "new and improved" -- that is definitely a bad thing.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's wrong because theft is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would hesitate to make such a blanket statement when it is a case of thieves who are being robbed.
> After all, why has Robin Hood been so popular for so many centuries?
> I say, stick it to King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham !!
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Agreed.  It's the job of our government to break up those monopolies.  I support that.

What I don't support is payroll redistribution.

I support police fire and rescue as a basic voluntary tax to live in a region. Where if you don't want to pay the tax you are free to pick another place to live a few miles away from the police fire and rescue umbrela.


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay great.  I will expect your check in the mail to help out with my mortgage, utilities,  cable bill, new tires for the Subaru as well as my healthcare premiums, and oh yes, my cell phone is obsolete and I really need a new one.  Oh, and let's throw in the landscaping project for the back yard.  So happy you see it as your duty to support me as I simply don't have the resources or the will to provide all that for myself.   I'm so happy that you see forced slavery as the price to live in the greatest society in history.  (Though I had been operating under the delusion that we had fought a war and passed a Constitutional amendment that sort of ended that sort of thing here.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am willing to provide you with a basic safety net. A place to live, food, clothing, healthcare...even a free education for your kids
> 
> If you are willing to give up all you have to settle for a lifestyle of poverty, I am willing to accept that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean give up all but what the average poor person in American has?  Trust me.  Mr. Foxfyre and I already do that and are currently living on less income than the average welfare family in the USA currently receives:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government now considers a family of four in New York City to be poor if its pre-tax income is below $37,900.Even with full medical coverage.
> 
> The calculation helps explain why newly revised Census Bureau figures hike the number of poor Americans to 49 million as of last year, further widening an already yawning gap between ordinary perceptions of poverty and how the government sees it.
> 
> This breathtaking number begs the question: What does it mean to be poor in the United States?
> 
> To the average American, the word poverty means significant material hardship and need. It means lack of a warm, dry home, recurring hunger and malnutrition, no medical care, worn-out clothes for the children. The mainstream media reinforce this view: The typical TV news story on poverty features a homeless family with kids living in the back of a van.
> 
> But poverty as the federal government defines it differs greatly from these images. Only 2 percent of the official poor are homeless. According to the governments own data, the typical poor family lives in a house or apartment thats not only in good repair but is larger than the homes of the average non-poor person in England, France or Germany.
> 
> The typical poor American experiences no material hardships, receives medical care whenever needed, has an ample diet and wasnt hungry for even a single day the previous year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the nutritional quality of the diets of poor children is identical to that of upper middle class kids.
> 
> In America, about 80 percent of poor families have air conditioning, nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV, half have a computer and a third have a wide-screen LCD or plasma TV.
> 
> All these government statistics were based on the Census Bureaus old definition of poverty. The new definition, released last week, stretches that gap between common-sense and government perspectives even further.
> 
> Previously, a family of four was considered poor if cash income was less than $22,800. The new definition sharply jerks up this threshold, especially in large cities.
> 
> Now, a family of four with full medical insurance, living in Oakland, can be considered poor if its yearly pre-tax income is below $42,500. In Washington, DC, the figure is $40,300; in Boston, $39,500; in New York, $37,900.
> 
> Remarkably, for the first time these new poverty thresholds are linked to an escalator that will boost them faster than inflation year after year. The income thresholds will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the actual living standards of the average American.
> Read more at:
> 'Poverty' Like We've Never Seen It
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Further I am entitle to something yes for all the years we didn't have the money to pay our bills, when the grocery money ran out days before the next paycheck, when any major expense could wipe us out entirely?  There was no welfare help for us back then and you know what, we survived anyway.  And we were damn proud of what we earned and accomplished despite not having America provide us with what we didn't have.   So many of us were in that boat and we helped out each other, our families helped as they could, and we didn't expect to own anything until we had the means to pay for it.
> 
> So thanks.   We will eagerly look forward to your check in the mail.
Click to expand...


So you are barely getting by

You are one catastrophe away from being destitute. It could get a serious illness, lose your source of income, have one of your children or grandchildren get sick

That is what happens to many, many Americans. I don't want you or your family to suffer. I don't want you to lose your house because you got sick. I don't think that is what this country is about.  We care about each other and are willing to help those who need help


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am willing to provide you with a basic safety net. A place to live, food, clothing, healthcare...even a free education for your kids
> 
> If you are willing to give up all you have to settle for a lifestyle of poverty, I am willing to accept that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean give up all but what the average poor person in American has?  Trust me.  Mr. Foxfyre and I already do that and are currently living on less income than the average welfare family in the USA currently receives:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government now considers a family of four in New York City to be poor if its pre-tax income is below $37,900.Even with full medical coverage.
> 
> The calculation helps explain why newly revised Census Bureau figures hike the number of poor Americans to 49 million as of last year, further widening an already yawning gap between ordinary perceptions of poverty and how the government sees it.
> 
> This breathtaking number begs the question: What does it mean to be poor in the United States?
> 
> To the average American, the word poverty means significant material hardship and need. It means lack of a warm, dry home, recurring hunger and malnutrition, no medical care, worn-out clothes for the children. The mainstream media reinforce this view: The typical TV news story on poverty features a homeless family with kids living in the back of a van.
> 
> But poverty as the federal government defines it differs greatly from these images. Only 2 percent of the official poor are homeless. According to the governments own data, the typical poor family lives in a house or apartment thats not only in good repair but is larger than the homes of the average non-poor person in England, France or Germany.
> 
> The typical poor American experiences no material hardships, receives medical care whenever needed, has an ample diet and wasnt hungry for even a single day the previous year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the nutritional quality of the diets of poor children is identical to that of upper middle class kids.
> 
> In America, about 80 percent of poor families have air conditioning, nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV, half have a computer and a third have a wide-screen LCD or plasma TV.
> 
> All these government statistics were based on the Census Bureaus old definition of poverty. The new definition, released last week, stretches that gap between common-sense and government perspectives even further.
> 
> Previously, a family of four was considered poor if cash income was less than $22,800. The new definition sharply jerks up this threshold, especially in large cities.
> 
> Now, a family of four with full medical insurance, living in Oakland, can be considered poor if its yearly pre-tax income is below $42,500. In Washington, DC, the figure is $40,300; in Boston, $39,500; in New York, $37,900.
> 
> Remarkably, for the first time these new poverty thresholds are linked to an escalator that will boost them faster than inflation year after year. The income thresholds will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the actual living standards of the average American.
> Read more at:
> 'Poverty' Like We've Never Seen It
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Further I am entitle to something yes for all the years we didn't have the money to pay our bills, when the grocery money ran out days before the next paycheck, when any major expense could wipe us out entirely?  There was no welfare help for us back then and you know what, we survived anyway.  And we were damn proud of what we earned and accomplished despite not having America provide us with what we didn't have.   So many of us were in that boat and we helped out each other, our families helped as they could, and we didn't expect to own anything until we had the means to pay for it.
> 
> So thanks.   We will eagerly look forward to your check in the mail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are barely getting by
> 
> You are one catastrophe away from being destitute. It could get a serious illness, lose your source of income, have one of your children or grandchildren get sick
> 
> That is what happens to many, many Americans. I don't want you or your family to suffer. I don't want you to lose your house because you got sick. I don't think that is what this country is about.  We care about each other and are willing to help those who need help
Click to expand...

So everyone should get tens of millions of dollars worth of health care for free right? No cost is too much for what we should spend on every illness.  No one should be required to sell their possessions to pay for their bills.  No one should have to work.  No one should have to go hungry.  No one should have to live with other family members.  Everyone deserves a 3-2 home in the burbs without fail to live in all by themselves so they can die alone.

Sad.  Just because you can't come up with an alternative to everything has to be free does not mean you are brilliant.  It just means you are stupid.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know the difference the result is the same. The only liberals that did good were the founders and all after them are scumbags
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags.  I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.
> 
> But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .
> 
> . . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart.  The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice.  Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.
> 
> And nobody wants to see that or admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your total disregard for our ancestors is beyond startling, it is ignorance fueled by your narcissism.
> 
> The Progressive Movement was a huge BI-partisan ground swell movement of our ancestors who were confronting the stench and changing what America had become. The Gilded Age saw corporations gain way too much power in America. And a small group of elites ruled this country and controlled our government. A country our founding fathers believed should be controlled by We, The People.
Click to expand...


and you accomplish all that by supporting the most corporate-sponsored president of all time


----------



## thanatos144

numan said:


> '
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We live in a republic not a democracy
> 
> 
> 
> We live in a militarized gangster state which has a thin veneer of republican formalism.
> 
> Only people with childish minds are taken in by the window-dressing.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


did your hippie professor in college teach you that stupidity or does it come naturally?


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean give up all but what the average poor person in American has?  Trust me.  Mr. Foxfyre and I already do that and are currently living on less income than the average welfare family in the USA currently receives:
> 
> 
> 
> Further I am entitle to something yes for all the years we didn't have the money to pay our bills, when the grocery money ran out days before the next paycheck, when any major expense could wipe us out entirely?  There was no welfare help for us back then and you know what, we survived anyway.  And we were damn proud of what we earned and accomplished despite not having America provide us with what we didn't have.   So many of us were in that boat and we helped out each other, our families helped as they could, and we didn't expect to own anything until we had the means to pay for it.
> 
> So thanks.   We will eagerly look forward to your check in the mail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are barely getting by
> 
> You are one catastrophe away from being destitute. It could get a serious illness, lose your source of income, have one of your children or grandchildren get sick
> 
> That is what happens to many, many Americans. I don't want you or your family to suffer. I don't want you to lose your house because you got sick. I don't think that is what this country is about.  We care about each other and are willing to help those who need help
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So *everyone* should get tens of millions of dollars worth of health care for free right? *No cost is too much* for what we should spend on every illness.  *No one should be required* to sell their possessions to pay for their bills.  *No one should* have to work.  *No one should* have to go hungry.  *No one should* have to live with other family members.  *Everyone deserves* a 3-2 home in the burbs without fail to live in all by themselves so they can die alone.
> 
> Sad.  Just because you can't come up with an alternative to everything has to be free does not mean you are brilliant.  It just means you are stupid.
Click to expand...


The right wing mind. Only capable of the childish, absurd, polarized (black or white, all or none) argument.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> The right wing mind. Only capable of the childish, absurd, polarized (black or white, all or none) argument.



That you think having to work for a living to raise a family and live a full life is childish, absurd, and polarizing just shows everyone how much of a commie pinko you are.


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right wing mind. Only capable of the childish, absurd, polarized (black or white, all or none) argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you think having to work for a living to raise a family and live a full life is childish, absurd, and polarizing just shows everyone how much of a commie pinko you are.
Click to expand...


THAT'S it...double down on your absurd all or none childish argument.


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am willing to provide you with a basic safety net. A place to live, food, clothing, healthcare...even a free education for your kids
> 
> If you are willing to give up all you have to settle for a lifestyle of poverty, I am willing to accept that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean give up all but what the average poor person in American has?  Trust me.  Mr. Foxfyre and I already do that and are currently living on less income than the average welfare family in the USA currently receives:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government now considers a family of four in New York City to be poor if its pre-tax income is below $37,900.Even with full medical coverage.
> 
> The calculation helps explain why newly revised Census Bureau figures hike the number of poor Americans to 49 million as of last year, further widening an already yawning gap between ordinary perceptions of poverty and how the government sees it.
> 
> This breathtaking number begs the question: What does it mean to be poor in the United States?
> 
> To the average American, the word poverty means significant material hardship and need. It means lack of a warm, dry home, recurring hunger and malnutrition, no medical care, worn-out clothes for the children. The mainstream media reinforce this view: The typical TV news story on poverty features a homeless family with kids living in the back of a van.
> 
> But poverty as the federal government defines it differs greatly from these images. Only 2 percent of the official poor are homeless. According to the governments own data, the typical poor family lives in a house or apartment thats not only in good repair but is larger than the homes of the average non-poor person in England, France or Germany.
> 
> The typical poor American experiences no material hardships, receives medical care whenever needed, has an ample diet and wasnt hungry for even a single day the previous year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the nutritional quality of the diets of poor children is identical to that of upper middle class kids.
> 
> In America, about 80 percent of poor families have air conditioning, nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV, half have a computer and a third have a wide-screen LCD or plasma TV.
> 
> All these government statistics were based on the Census Bureaus old definition of poverty. The new definition, released last week, stretches that gap between common-sense and government perspectives even further.
> 
> Previously, a family of four was considered poor if cash income was less than $22,800. The new definition sharply jerks up this threshold, especially in large cities.
> 
> Now, a family of four with full medical insurance, living in Oakland, can be considered poor if its yearly pre-tax income is below $42,500. In Washington, DC, the figure is $40,300; in Boston, $39,500; in New York, $37,900.
> 
> Remarkably, for the first time these new poverty thresholds are linked to an escalator that will boost them faster than inflation year after year. The income thresholds will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the actual living standards of the average American.
> Read more at:
> 'Poverty' Like We've Never Seen It
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Further I am entitle to something yes for all the years we didn't have the money to pay our bills, when the grocery money ran out days before the next paycheck, when any major expense could wipe us out entirely?  There was no welfare help for us back then and you know what, we survived anyway.  And we were damn proud of what we earned and accomplished despite not having America provide us with what we didn't have.   So many of us were in that boat and we helped out each other, our families helped as they could, and we didn't expect to own anything until we had the means to pay for it.
> 
> So thanks.   We will eagerly look forward to your check in the mail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are barely getting by
> 
> You are one catastrophe away from being destitute. It could get a serious illness, lose your source of income, have one of your children or grandchildren get sick
> 
> That is what happens to many, many Americans. I don't want you or your family to suffer. I don't want you to lose your house because you got sick. I don't think that is what this country is about.  We care about each other and are willing to help those who need help
Click to expand...


So when can I expect your check?


----------



## Foxfyre

It is quite simple actually.

Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other.  Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.

Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.

Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities.  He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.

The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question:  on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property?   Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.

The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances.   He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> It is quite simple actually.
> 
> Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other.  Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.
> 
> Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.
> 
> Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities.  He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.
> 
> The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question:  on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property?   Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.
> 
> The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances.   He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.


True.. but it's also true that Citizen B may have had a mom that knew a CEO like Bill Gates mom did and got him a high paying job based on no work and no school just on mom's promise.  Then turned that into a billion dollar business.  Effort does not equate to income, not in all cases.  Sometimes you have to know someone to get in the right position to make easy big bucks.  Just sayin.

I think what ticks some off is the Suits who get paid the same as tens of thousands of employees. At some point things do seem to get out of whack.  Course if you investigate the issue is usually because government allowed a monopoly to exist.  In this case the CEOs monopoly over specifying what CEO salary should be for public-ally traded companies.


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite simple actually.
> 
> Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other.  Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.
> 
> Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.
> 
> Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities.  He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.
> 
> The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question:  on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property?   Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.
> 
> The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances.   He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.
> 
> 
> 
> True.. but it's also true that Citizen B may have had a mom that knew a CEO like Bill Gates mom did and got him a high paying job based on no work and no school just on mom's promise.  Then turned that into a billion dollar business.  Effort does not equate to income, not in all cases.  Sometimes you have to know someone to get in the right position to make easy big bucks.  Just sayin.
> 
> I think what ticks some off is the Suits who get paid the same as tens of thousands of employees. At some point things do seem to get out of whack.  Course if you investigate the issue is usually because government allowed a monopoly to exist.  In this case the CEOs monopoly over specifying what CEO salary should be for public-ally traded companies.
Click to expand...

and whom do you think needs to tell those businesses how much a CEO salary should be?


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean give up all but what the average poor person in American has?  Trust me.  Mr. Foxfyre and I already do that and are currently living on less income than the average welfare family in the USA currently receives:
> 
> 
> 
> Further I am entitle to something yes for all the years we didn't have the money to pay our bills, when the grocery money ran out days before the next paycheck, when any major expense could wipe us out entirely?  There was no welfare help for us back then and you know what, we survived anyway.  And we were damn proud of what we earned and accomplished despite not having America provide us with what we didn't have.   So many of us were in that boat and we helped out each other, our families helped as they could, and we didn't expect to own anything until we had the means to pay for it.
> 
> So thanks.   We will eagerly look forward to your check in the mail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are barely getting by
> 
> You are one catastrophe away from being destitute. It could get a serious illness, lose your source of income, have one of your children or grandchildren get sick
> 
> That is what happens to many, many Americans. I don't want you or your family to suffer. I don't want you to lose your house because you got sick. I don't think that is what this country is about.  We care about each other and are willing to help those who need help
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everyone should get tens of millions of dollars worth of health care for free right? No cost is too much for what we should spend on every illness.  No one should be required to sell their possessions to pay for their bills.  No one should have to work.  No one should have to go hungry.  No one should have to live with other family members.  Everyone deserves a 3-2 home in the burbs without fail to live in all by themselves so they can die alone.
> 
> Sad.  Just because you can't come up with an alternative to everything has to be free does not mean you are brilliant.  It just means you are stupid.
Click to expand...


Nice post Mr Hyperbole

Why do you guys always fall back on the old.......So everyone gets healthcare for FREE

If you can afford healthcare, by all means you should pay for it. But Healhcare needs to be affordable. If you cant afford healthcare, you should not suffer for lack of an ability to pay. 

You ready Mr Hyperbole?

Let em die is not a healthcare plan


----------



## Foxfyre

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite simple actually.
> 
> Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other.  Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.
> 
> Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.
> 
> Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities.  He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.
> 
> The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question:  on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property?   Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.
> 
> The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances.   He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.
> 
> 
> 
> True.. but it's also true that Citizen B may have had a mom that knew a CEO like Bill Gates mom did and got him a high paying job based on no work and no school just on mom's promise.  Then turned that into a billion dollar business.  Effort does not equate to income, not in all cases.  Sometimes you have to know someone to get in the right position to make easy big bucks.  Just sayin.
> 
> I think what ticks some off is the Suits who get paid the same as tens of thousands of employees. At some point things do seem to get out of whack.  Course if you investigate the issue is usually because government allowed a monopoly to exist.  In this case the CEOs monopoly over specifying what CEO salary should be for public-ally traded companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and whom do you think needs to tell those businesses how much a CEO salary should be?
Click to expand...


My husband and I were both taking whatever paying jobs we could get by the time we were 11 and 12 and both were working fairly steadily outside of school schedules by the time we were 16 and we both have worked our entire lives until we retired a little over a year ago.   In the process we had the ability to give our kids a leg up by providing them opportunities that we didn't have.  Both took advantage of that leg up and educated themselves and each now earn more than Mr. Foxfyre and I used to earn together at our peak earning years.

If the American dream does not include giving good gifts to our children and helping them succeed and prosper, then what is it really good for?  And how does their prosperity in any way take anything away from anybody else?   In fact they are both in a position to hire people and give those people a shot at the American dream.

The person who settles for the public dole adds little, if anything, to the common good and drains a whole lot from it.   The modern American liberal seems to think he is justified in feeling envious and resenting the person who makes the big bucks.

The modern conservative aka classical liberal knows that if nobody can hope to acquire the big bucks, there won't be much, if any, ability to provide a hand up to others and the resources will dry up completely for the freeloader.


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> It is quite simple actually.
> 
> Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other.  Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.
> 
> Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.
> 
> Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities.  He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.
> 
> The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question:  on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property?   Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.
> 
> The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances.   He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.



Cool.......More Grasshopper and the Ant analogies

How about when citizen B is incarcerated for the rest of his life?  don't Citizen As earnings pay for it!

But your Grasshopper and the Ant fable is mostly that. Most Americans are not Grasshoppers. They work hard and yet still struggle. You, yourself admit to being one of those ants. People need a safety net. Lose your job, get injured, suffer medical bills.....many times life deals you a lemon


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite simple actually.
> 
> Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other.  Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.
> 
> Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.
> 
> Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities.  He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.
> 
> The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question:  on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property?   Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.
> 
> The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances.   He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.......More Grasshopper and the Ant analogies
> 
> How about when citizen B is incarcerated for the rest of his life?  don't Citizen As earnings pay for it!
> 
> But your Grasshopper and the Ant fable is mostly that. Most Americans are not Grasshoppers. They work hard and yet still struggle. You, yourself admit to being one of those ants. People need a safety net. Lose your job, get injured, suffer medical bills.....many times life deals you a lemon
Click to expand...


The point is, Mr. Foxfyre and I have dealt with LOTs of lemons.  We have had to start over from scratch.  We have had a lot of years when our financial prognosis was pretty iffy.   But if we hadn't been able to make it, we would have been at the mercy of friends, family, or private charities because there was no welfare program for people like us back then.  Or any other of milions of us in that same boat.  And yet people survived just fine.

I spent quite a few years working professionally with the poor and in recent years my husband and I have been volunteering our time and expertise to help those less well off than we are.  Obviously anti-poverty programs are not keeping people out of jail because the jails and prisons are stuffed.   Programs that encourage people to educate and train themselves to work for a living, be proud of what they can accomplish, and become productive members of society do keep people out of jail.

But the bottom line is, on what moral principle can you stand on to demand that Citizen A support Citizien B?  What entitles Citizen B to anything Citizen A has? 

Citizen A may very well offer Citizen B a hand up or a hot meal out of the goodness of his heart--millions of Americans do that every single day.  But only a modern American liberal thinks that there is a moral justification to punish success and reward failure--to penalize those who are industrious and responsible in order to compensate those who make very bad choices.


----------



## Immanuel

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite simple actually.
> 
> Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other.  Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.
> 
> Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.
> 
> Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities.  He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.
> 
> The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question:  on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property?   Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.
> 
> The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances.   He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.
> 
> 
> 
> True.. but it's also true that Citizen B may have had a mom that knew a CEO like Bill Gates mom did and got him a high paying job based on no work and no school just on mom's promise.  Then turned that into a billion dollar business.  Effort does not equate to income, not in all cases.  Sometimes you have to know someone to get in the right position to make easy big bucks.  Just sayin.
> 
> I think what ticks some off is the Suits who get paid the same as tens of thousands of employees. At some point things do seem to get out of whack.  Course if you investigate the issue is usually because government allowed a monopoly to exist.  In this case the CEOs monopoly over specifying what CEO salary should be for public-ally traded companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and whom do you think needs to tell those businesses how much a CEO salary should be?
Click to expand...


Pelosi and Reid and an elect committee of progressives.  Surely they will be fair.

Excuse me, I think I am going to be sick for typing that.

Immie


----------



## RKMBrown

Immanuel said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.. but it's also true that Citizen B may have had a mom that knew a CEO like Bill Gates mom did and got him a high paying job based on no work and no school just on mom's promise.  Then turned that into a billion dollar business.  Effort does not equate to income, not in all cases.  Sometimes you have to know someone to get in the right position to make easy big bucks.  Just sayin.
> 
> I think what ticks some off is the Suits who get paid the same as tens of thousands of employees. At some point things do seem to get out of whack.  Course if you investigate the issue is usually because government allowed a monopoly to exist.  In this case the CEOs monopoly over specifying what CEO salary should be for public-ally traded companies.
> 
> 
> 
> and whom do you think needs to tell those businesses how much a CEO salary should be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pelosi and Reid and an elect committee of progressives.  Surely they will be fair.
> 
> Excuse me, I think I am going to be sick for typing that.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


The owners (stockholders) should be the ones setting the salaries of their executives.  But that's not how it works.


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are barely getting by
> 
> You are one catastrophe away from being destitute. It could get a serious illness, lose your source of income, have one of your children or grandchildren get sick
> 
> That is what happens to many, many Americans. I don't want you or your family to suffer. I don't want you to lose your house because you got sick. I don't think that is what this country is about.  We care about each other and are willing to help those who need help
> 
> 
> 
> So everyone should get tens of millions of dollars worth of health care for free right? No cost is too much for what we should spend on every illness.  No one should be required to sell their possessions to pay for their bills.  No one should have to work.  No one should have to go hungry.  No one should have to live with other family members.  Everyone deserves a 3-2 home in the burbs without fail to live in all by themselves so they can die alone.
> 
> Sad.  Just because you can't come up with an alternative to everything has to be free does not mean you are brilliant.  It just means you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice post Mr Hyperbole
> 
> Why do you guys always fall back on the old.......So everyone gets healthcare for FREE
> 
> If you can afford healthcare, by all means you should pay for it. But Healhcare needs to be affordable. If you cant afford healthcare, you should not suffer for lack of an ability to pay.
> 
> You ready Mr Hyperbole?
> 
> Let em die is not a healthcare plan
Click to expand...


>>> But Healhcare needs to be affordable. If you cant afford healthcare, you should not suffer for lack of an ability to pay. 

So your plan is to take a meat cleaver and force surgeons to work for free?  Gonna put chains on our smart people and force them to study for 12-16years to become surgeons and work for nothing? Or is your plan to just start selling off the assets of every American above you asset level to pay for everyone's health care?

How about if we take all of your money, sell your cars, sell your house and your flat screen TV to pay for all of your neighbors to sit on their butts and get free health care, how does that sound?  After all health care is more important than your TV set, isn't it?


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and whom do you think needs to tell those businesses how much a CEO salary should be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pelosi and Reid and an elect committee of progressives.  Surely they will be fair.
> 
> Excuse me, I think I am going to be sick for typing that.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The owners (stockholders) should be the ones setting the salaries of their executives.  But that's not how it works.
Click to expand...


No the board does


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite simple actually.
> 
> Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other.  Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.
> 
> Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.
> 
> Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities.  He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.
> 
> The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question:  on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property?   Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.
> 
> The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances.   He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.......More Grasshopper and the Ant analogies
> 
> How about when citizen B is incarcerated for the rest of his life?  don't Citizen As earnings pay for it!
> 
> But your Grasshopper and the Ant fable is mostly that. Most Americans are not Grasshoppers. They work hard and yet still struggle. You, yourself admit to being one of those ants. People need a safety net. Lose your job, get injured, suffer medical bills.....many times life deals you a lemon
Click to expand...


True. 

The genius of the New Deal Era was the recognition of the fact that we were in the process of creating an industrial superpower, a Nation of great wealth and influence. As a consequence of that industrialization the relationship between employed and employer had changed where the former was forever at a disadvantage to the latter. Where working men and women were now subject to capricious cycles of economic boom and bust. And where those hard working, industrious men and women could lose all they worked for through no fault of their own.


----------



## Foxfyre

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite simple actually.
> 
> Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other.  Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.
> 
> Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.
> 
> Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities.  He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.
> 
> The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question:  on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property?   Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.
> 
> The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances.   He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.......More Grasshopper and the Ant analogies
> 
> How about when citizen B is incarcerated for the rest of his life?  don't Citizen As earnings pay for it!
> 
> But your Grasshopper and the Ant fable is mostly that. Most Americans are not Grasshoppers. They work hard and yet still struggle. You, yourself admit to being one of those ants. People need a safety net. Lose your job, get injured, suffer medical bills.....many times life deals you a lemon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> The genius of the New Deal Era was the recognition of the fact that we were in the process of creating an industrial superpower, a Nation of great wealth and influence. As a consequence of that industrialization the relationship between employed and employer had changed where the former was forever at a disadvantage to the latter. Where working men and women were now subject to capricious cycles of economic boom and bust. And where those hard working, industrious men and women could lose all they worked for through no fault of their own.
Click to expand...


So with all that New Deal magic, why are we enduring longest and slowest recession with the highest number of people out of work, or seriously underemployed since the 1930's, declinng family income, and deteriorating property values along with more people on some kind of government assistance than has EVER existed before?   Sure has worked wonders hasn't it.

The beauty of liberty and the free market is that people with the skill and work ethic can amass great fortunes  without taking one penny away from anybody else or hindering anybody else's choices, options, or opportunities in any way.

But the more the government interferes with that process, the less opportunity and fewer choices, and options there will be.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite simple actually.
> 
> Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other.  Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.
> 
> Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.
> 
> Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities.  He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.
> 
> The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question:  on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property?   Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.
> 
> The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances.   He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.......More Grasshopper and the Ant analogies
> 
> How about when citizen B is incarcerated for the rest of his life?  don't Citizen As earnings pay for it!
> 
> But your Grasshopper and the Ant fable is mostly that. Most Americans are not Grasshoppers. They work hard and yet still struggle. You, yourself admit to being one of those ants. People need a safety net. Lose your job, get injured, suffer medical bills.....many times life deals you a lemon
Click to expand...







Really?  There are more people on public assistance than are paying into it, the numbers don't agree with you.


----------



## JimBowie1958

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite simple actually.
> 
> Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other.  Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.
> 
> Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.
> 
> Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities.  He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.
> 
> The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question:  on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property?   Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.
> 
> The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances.   He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.......More Grasshopper and the Ant analogies
> 
> How about when citizen B is incarcerated for the rest of his life?  don't Citizen As earnings pay for it!
> 
> But your Grasshopper and the Ant fable is mostly that. Most Americans are not Grasshoppers. They work hard and yet still struggle. You, yourself admit to being one of those ants. People need a safety net. Lose your job, get injured, suffer medical bills.....many times life deals you a lemon
Click to expand...


Right so stop stealing our hard earned cash using the government and go fuck off.

Rightwing you are a fraud, a liar and a worthless turd of a punk.


----------



## JimBowie1958

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pelosi and Reid and an elect committee of progressives.  Surely they will be fair.
> 
> Excuse me, I think I am going to be sick for typing that.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The owners (stockholders) should be the ones setting the salaries of their executives.  But that's not how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the board does
Click to expand...


lol, yeah right and the Queen of England calls Parlaiment.... as if she has any fucking choice.


----------



## Bfgrn

Why the Conservative Worldview Exalts Selfishness

*Conservatives and liberals have profoundly different moral views about what constitutes a just economy and society.
*

Markets are not provided by nature. They are constructed  by laws, rules, and institutions. All of these have moral bases of one sort or another. Hence, all markets are moral, according to someones sense of morality. The only question is, Whose morality? In contemporary America, it is conservative versus progressive morality that governs forms of economic policy. The systems of morality behind economic policies need to be discussed.

Most Democrats, consciously or mostly unconsciously, use a moral view deriving from an idealized notion of nurturant parenting, a morality based on caring about their fellow citizens, and acting responsibly both for themselves and others with what President Obama has called an ethic of excellence  doing ones best not just for oneself, but for ones family, community, and country, and for the world. Government on this view has two moral missions: to protect and empower everyone equally.

The means is The Public, which provides infrastructure, public education, and regulations to maximize health, protection and justice, a sustainable environment, systems for information and transportation, and so forth. The Public is necessary for The Private, especially private enterprise, which relies on all of the above. The liberal market economy maximizes overall freedom by serving public needs: providing needed products at reasonable prices for reasonable profits, paying workers fairly and treating them well, and serving the communities to which they belong. In short, the people the economy is supposed to serve are ordinary citizens. This has been the basis of American democracy from the beginning.

Conservatives hold a different moral perspective, based on an idealized notion of a strict father family. In this model, the father is The Decider, who is in charge, knows right from wrong, and teaches children morality by punishing them painfully when they do wrong, so that they can become disciplined enough to do right and thrive in the market.  If they are not well-off, they are not sufficiently disciplined and so cannot be moral: they deserve their poverty. Applied to conservative politics, this yields a moral hierarchy with the wealthy, morally disciplined citizens deservedly on the top. 

Democracy is seen as providing liberty, the freedom to seek ones self interest with minimal responsibility for the interests or well-being of others. It is laissez-faire liberty. Responsibility is personal, not social. People should be able to be their own strict fathers, Deciders on their own  the ideal of conservative populists, who are voting their morality not their economic interests.  Those who are needy are assumed to be weak and undisciplined and therefore morally lacking. The most moral people are the rich. The slogan, Let the market decide, sees the market itself as The Decider, the ultimate authority, where there should be no government power over it to regulate, tax, protect workers, and to impose fines in tort cases. Those with no money are undisciplined, not moral, and so should be punished. The poor can earn redemption only by suffering and thus, supposedly, getting an incentive to do better.

If you believe all of this, and if you see the world only from this perspective, then you cannot possibly perceive the deep economic truth that The Public is necessary for The Private, for a decent private life and private enterprise. The denial of this truth, and the desire to eliminate The Public altogether, can unfortunately come naturally and honestly via this moral perspective. 

 Just as the authority of a strict father must always be maintained, so the highest value in this conservative moral system is the preservation, extension, and ultimate victory of the conservative moral system itself.  Preaching about the deficit is only a means to an end  eliminating funding for The Public and bringing us closer to permanent conservative domination.  From this perspective, the Paul Ryan budget makes sense  cut funding for The Public (the antithesis of conservative morality) and reward the rich (who are the best people from a conservative moral perspective).  Economic truth is irrelevant here.

Historically, American democracy is premised on the moral principle that citizens care about each other and that a robust Public is the way to act on that care.  Who is the market economy for? All of us. Equally. But with the sway of conservative morality, we are moving toward a  1 percent  economy  for the bankers, the wealthy investors, and the super rich like the six members of the family that owns Walmart and has accumulated more wealth than the bottom 30 percent of Americans. Six people!

What is wrong with a 1 percent economy? As Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out in  The Price of Inequality,  the 1 percent economy eliminates opportunity for over a hundred million Americans. From the Land of Opportunity, we are in danger of becoming the Land of Opportunism.

more


"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## editec

Why do FORMER LIBERALS now hate liberalism?

Because when LIBERALS had control of the nation they FAILED to protect the American people.

Because the so called LIBERALS betrayed the class that gave them power.

Now the ONLY people who do not understand this are CONSERVATIVES who still imagine that the people calling themselves LIBERALS who are in power, are or ever have been LIBERALS.


----------



## dblack

Setting aside all the debate over accurate definitions, and just going with a "folk" conception of liberals, I'll offer this answer to the topic's question:

People hate liberals because they won't mind their own business. They're not content with a government that maximizes our freedom to live as we wish but, instead, want to use to government to compel others to conform to their vision of the 'good life'.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So everyone should get tens of millions of dollars worth of health care for free right? No cost is too much for what we should spend on every illness.  No one should be required to sell their possessions to pay for their bills.  No one should have to work.  No one should have to go hungry.  No one should have to live with other family members.  Everyone deserves a 3-2 home in the burbs without fail to live in all by themselves so they can die alone.
> 
> Sad.  Just because you can't come up with an alternative to everything has to be free does not mean you are brilliant.  It just means you are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice post Mr Hyperbole
> 
> Why do you guys always fall back on the old.......So everyone gets healthcare for FREE
> 
> If you can afford healthcare, by all means you should pay for it. But Healhcare needs to be affordable. If you cant afford healthcare, you should not suffer for lack of an ability to pay.
> 
> You ready Mr Hyperbole?
> 
> Let em die is not a healthcare plan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>> But Healhcare needs to be affordable. If you cant afford healthcare, you should not suffer for lack of an ability to pay.
> 
> So your plan is to take a meat cleaver and force surgeons to work for free?  Gonna put chains on our smart people and force them to study for 12-16years to become surgeons and work for nothing? Or is your plan to just start selling off the assets of every American above you asset level to pay for everyone's health care?
> 
> How about if we take all of your money, sell your cars, sell your house and your flat screen TV to pay for all of your neighbors to sit on their butts and get free health care, how does that sound?  After all health care is more important than your TV set, isn't it?
Click to expand...


Damn Mr Hyperbole.......you have just been elevated to Dr Hyperbole


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite simple actually.
> 
> Citizen A and Citizen B grow up next door to each other.  Both their parents work for the same company and earn the same salary.
> 
> Citizen A chooses to stay in school, earn decent grades and educate himself, stays away from illegal activities, takes whatever work he can get to learn marketable skills, acquire references and experience and develop a work ethic and goes on to acquire a job that allows him to support himself and a family, a middle class single family home; enjoy a few little luxuries, and sock something away for his reirement years.
> 
> Citizen B chooses to goof off in school until there doesn't seem to be any point in going and he drops out to spend his days running with other drop outs and dabbling in illegal activities.  He dislikes the minimum wage jobs offered him and works just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance so that he doesn't have to do anything for his beer and cigarette money.
> 
> The classical liberal/modern American conservative asks the question:  on what basis can anybody say that Citizen B is entitled to one penny of Citizen A's earnings or property?   Citizen A might be willing to donate, however, to a program that would require Citizen B to do community service or otherwise earn some money for rent and groceries on the theory that if he has to work for it anyway, he might as well put in the effort and get a real job.
> 
> The modern American liberal doesn't care what choices Citizen B has made or whether he is responsible for his own circumstances.   He has nothing and it is Citizen A's responsibility to support him because of some kind of fuzzy notion that a moral society mandates that and it is demeaning and insulting to Citizen B to require him to do anything for that money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.......More Grasshopper and the Ant analogies
> 
> How about when citizen B is incarcerated for the rest of his life?  don't Citizen As earnings pay for it!
> 
> But your Grasshopper and the Ant fable is mostly that. Most Americans are not Grasshoppers. They work hard and yet still struggle. You, yourself admit to being one of those ants. People need a safety net. Lose your job, get injured, suffer medical bills.....many times life deals you a lemon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  There are more people on public assistance than are paying into it, the numbers don't agree with you.
Click to expand...


Oh yes......I forgot about Conservatives and 47% of Americans are freeloaders stuff


----------



## thanatos144

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.......More Grasshopper and the Ant analogies
> 
> How about when citizen B is incarcerated for the rest of his life?  don't Citizen As earnings pay for it!
> 
> But your Grasshopper and the Ant fable is mostly that. Most Americans are not Grasshoppers. They work hard and yet still struggle. You, yourself admit to being one of those ants. People need a safety net. Lose your job, get injured, suffer medical bills.....many times life deals you a lemon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  There are more people on public assistance than are paying into it, the numbers don't agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes......I forgot about Conservatives and 47% of Americans are freeloaders stuff
Click to expand...

Don't flatter yourself that are not that many people like you.


----------



## rightwinger

thanatos144 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  There are more people on public assistance than are paying into it, the numbers don't agree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes......I forgot about Conservatives and 47% of Americans are freeloaders stuff
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't flatter yourself that are not that many people like you.
Click to expand...


You mean people who care about our fellow Amercans?

There are plenty and most are repulsed by "I got mine, fuck everyone else" conservatives


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.......More Grasshopper and the Ant analogies
> 
> How about when citizen B is incarcerated for the rest of his life?  don't Citizen As earnings pay for it!
> 
> But your Grasshopper and the Ant fable is mostly that. Most Americans are not Grasshoppers. They work hard and yet still struggle. You, yourself admit to being one of those ants. People need a safety net. Lose your job, get injured, suffer medical bills.....many times life deals you a lemon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  There are more people on public assistance than are paying into it, the numbers don't agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes......I forgot about Conservatives and 47% of Americans are freeloaders stuff
Click to expand...


Obama got more people on food stamps than accepting employment


----------



## thanatos144

rightwinger said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes......I forgot about Conservatives and 47% of Americans are freeloaders stuff
> 
> 
> 
> Don't flatter yourself that are not that many people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean people who care about our fellow Amercans?
> 
> There are plenty and most are repulsed by "I got mine, fuck everyone else" conservatives
Click to expand...


no I mean moochers


----------



## rightwinger

thanatos144 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't flatter yourself that are not that many people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean people who care about our fellow Amercans?
> 
> There are plenty and most are repulsed by "I got mine, fuck everyone else" conservatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no I mean moochers
Click to expand...


Such as?


----------



## Samson

thanatos144 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't flatter yourself that are not that many people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean people who care about our fellow Amercans?
> 
> There are plenty and most are repulsed by "I got mine, fuck everyone else" conservatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no I mean moochers
Click to expand...


A Political Party is not comprised of moochers.

Someone must pay the bills.

Lets take a look at California, with both senators (Feinstein, Boxer) and congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, are Democrats.







California may be a fiscal basketcase as a state, but it is nott full of moochers. Nor is the NorthEast, or the area around the Great Lakes; all consistantly Democratic strongholds


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean people who care about our fellow Amercans?
> 
> There are plenty and most are repulsed by "I got mine, fuck everyone else" conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no I mean moochers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such as?
Click to expand...


----------



## thanatos144

Samson said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean people who care about our fellow Amercans?
> 
> There are plenty and most are repulsed by "I got mine, fuck everyone else" conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no I mean moochers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Political Party is not comprised of moochers.
> 
> Someone must pay the bills.
> 
> Lets take a look at California, with both senators (Feinstein, Boxer, and Nancy Pelosi, Democrats).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California may be a fiscal basketcase as a state, but it is nott full of moochers. Nor is the NorthEast, or the area around the Great Lakes; all consistantly Democratic strongholds
Click to expand...


that must be why it isn't going bankrupt right?


----------



## RKMBrown

Samson said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean people who care about our fellow Amercans?
> 
> There are plenty and most are repulsed by "I got mine, fuck everyone else" conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no I mean moochers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Political Party is not comprised of moochers.
> 
> Someone must pay the bills.
> 
> Lets take a look at California, with both senators (Feinstein, Boxer) and congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, are Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California may be a fiscal basketcase as a state, but it is nott full of moochers. Nor is the NorthEast, or the area around the Great Lakes; all consistantly Democratic strongholds
Click to expand...


ROFL... you can't read a map?  That's a population map, not a map of rich vs poor ratio.


----------



## RKMBrown




----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no I mean moochers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


There you go...the right wing anecdotal argument.

IRONY abounds...

Ring Wing Goes Crazy Over 'Obama Phones' Which Are Actually 'Reagan Phones'

The true irony of Ronald Reagan; he created a mythical 'welfare queen' used to deconstruct the middle class and trash the poor. Yet Ronald Reagan is the ultimate welfare queen personified. 

As the liberal era that began with the New Deal came to an end with the splintering of the Democratic Party brought about by assassination of Presidents and future Presidents, the Vietnam War fiasco and conservative money creating 'think tanks', JFK and LBJ, the last two Presidents of that era faced the awful specter how to deal with revenue SURPLUSES. Public debt was not even part of our lexicon...

Enter Reagan, the welfare queen. Put everything on the Beijing credit card and dump the bill on our children, grandchildren and their children and grandchildren.  

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a &#8220;tax and spend&#8221; policy, to a &#8220;borrow and spend&#8221; policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.


"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

&#8220;Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.&#8221; Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.
Charles Krauthammer

"Ronald Reagan must be the nicest president who ever destroyed a union, tried to cut school lunch milk rations from six to four ounces, and compelled families in need of public help to first dispose of household goods in excess of $1,000...1f there is an authoritarian regime in the American future, Ronald Reagan is tailored to the image of a friendly fascist." - Robert Lekachman


----------



## Bfgrn

Red States Are Welfare Queens

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States &#8212; the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut &#8212; are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

    New Mexico: $2.03
    Mississippi: $2.02
    Alaska: $1.84
    Louisiana: $1.78
    West Virginia: $1.76
    North Dakota: $1.68
    Alabama: $1.66
    South Dakota: $1.53
    Kentucky: $1.51
    Virginia: $1.51
    Montana: $1.47
    Hawaii: $1.44
    Maine: $1.41
    Arkansas: $1.41
    Oklahoma: $1.36
    South Carolina: $1.35
    Missouri: $1.32
    Maryland: $1.30
    Tennessee: $1.27
    Idaho: $1.21

Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.

Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Setting aside all the debate over accurate definitions, and just going with a "folk" conception of liberals, I'll offer this answer to the topic's question:
> 
> People hate liberals because they won't mind their own business. They're not content with a government that maximizes our freedom to live as we wish but, instead, want to use to government to compel others to conform to their vision of the 'good life'.



You are dead on balls accurate of course except that I again protest a concept of hating liberals.  It isn't the liberals we hate but their liberalism.  But kudos for refocusing on the thread topic and refusing to play the 'whose has been blackest' game of politics rather than concepts of liberalism.   Some of our friends are very good at that and I think they do it deliberately to ensure that no discussion of the topic will take place.

But again, the fact that you are right won't change the fact that the liberals will still say you are not describing liberals but you are describing conservatives.

And because nobody is willing to agree on a definition of the terms--some won't even allow accurate terms to be used--it will still get bogged down in linguistic food fights that have nothing at all to do with the topic.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> Red States Are Welfare Queens
> 
> As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States  the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut  are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.
> 
> Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.
> 
> Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.
> 
> New Mexico: $2.03
> Mississippi: $2.02
> Alaska: $1.84
> Louisiana: $1.78
> West Virginia: $1.76
> North Dakota: $1.68
> Alabama: $1.66
> South Dakota: $1.53
> Kentucky: $1.51
> Virginia: $1.51
> Montana: $1.47
> Hawaii: $1.44
> Maine: $1.41
> Arkansas: $1.41
> Oklahoma: $1.36
> South Carolina: $1.35
> Missouri: $1.32
> Maryland: $1.30
> Tennessee: $1.27
> Idaho: $1.21
> 
> Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.
> 
> Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.
> 
> Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider



stop drinking the Kool Aid


----------



## Foxfyre

*But sending all that money to Washington and then checking to see who gets the most back of what they send is a particular modern American liberal stupidity and tunnel vision.*

The Founders did not intend ANY of us to be sending money to Washington for any purpose other than what we explicitly directed the government to do via the Constitution, and that was summarized in the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Even a cursory reading of the founding documents show that 'general welfare' bore no resemblance to public charity or any form of benevolence--something the Founders never intended the federal government to be involved in--but was what benefitted all and was necessary for the several states to function as one united nation; i.e. post roads, trade agreements with other countries, etc.

"Establish justice" and 'domestic tranquility' was narrowly focused on such laws and regulation as were necessary to prevent the states from doing environmental, economic, or physical violence to each other and establishment of RICO and anti-trust laws for the same reason. 

And then the Federal government was to leave us strictly alone to live our lives and form whatever sorts of societies we wished to have.

*To be whining that "Ma!  He got a bigger piece of cake!" is just stupid when you look at the trillions of dollars now collected by the federal government who swallows up two thirds of that just to feed that sme government and then doles out the rest, mostly in the most politically advantageous way possible.

THAT is what the modern conservative/classical liberal rails against, and why we rail against modern American liberalism that promotes such a counter productive and indefensible way of running a country.*


----------



## Immanuel

RKMBrown said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and whom do you think needs to tell those businesses how much a CEO salary should be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pelosi and Reid and an elect committee of progressives.  Surely they will be fair.
> 
> Excuse me, I think I am going to be sick for typing that.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The owners (stockholders) should be the ones setting the salaries of their executives.  But that's not how it works.
Click to expand...


Don't expect an argument from me on that.

Immie


----------



## westwall

Bfgrn said:


> Red States Are Welfare Queens
> 
> As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States  the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut  are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.
> 
> Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.
> 
> Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.
> 
> New Mexico: $2.03
> Mississippi: $2.02
> Alaska: $1.84
> Louisiana: $1.78
> West Virginia: $1.76
> North Dakota: $1.68
> Alabama: $1.66
> South Dakota: $1.53
> Kentucky: $1.51
> Virginia: $1.51
> Montana: $1.47
> Hawaii: $1.44
> Maine: $1.41
> Arkansas: $1.41
> Oklahoma: $1.36
> South Carolina: $1.35
> Missouri: $1.32
> Maryland: $1.30
> Tennessee: $1.27
> Idaho: $1.21
> 
> Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.
> 
> Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.
> 
> Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider









The problem with your little list is take a look at the populations of the states you are complaining about vs those states you think are so great.


----------



## numan

RKMBrown said:


>


I see from your map that Texas is quite a leader in poverty, as well as in its traditional lead in insanity.

Is that because of your rugged individualism?

.


----------



## thanatos144

numan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see from your map that Texas is quite a leader in poverty, as well as in its traditional lead in insanity.
> 
> Is that because of your rugged individualism?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Cost of living is diffrent in Texas commie


----------



## numan

thanatos144 said:


> Cost of living is diffrent in Texas commie


You mean they charge poor people more for things in Texas, Boobie?

.


----------



## Foxfyre

westwall said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red States Are Welfare Queens
> 
> As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States &#8212; the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut &#8212; are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.
> 
> Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.
> 
> Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.
> 
> New Mexico: $2.03
> Mississippi: $2.02
> Alaska: $1.84
> Louisiana: $1.78
> West Virginia: $1.76
> North Dakota: $1.68
> Alabama: $1.66
> South Dakota: $1.53
> Kentucky: $1.51
> Virginia: $1.51
> Montana: $1.47
> Hawaii: $1.44
> Maine: $1.41
> Arkansas: $1.41
> Oklahoma: $1.36
> South Carolina: $1.35
> Missouri: $1.32
> Maryland: $1.30
> Tennessee: $1.27
> Idaho: $1.21
> 
> Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.
> 
> Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.
> 
> Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your little list is take a look at the populations of the states you are complaining about vs those states you think are so great.
Click to expand...


More to the point, a great lion's share of those federal expenditures are for federal installations like military bases and such.  New Mexico seems to get a disproportionate share because we have three large military bases here plus the White Sands missile proving grounds and the scientific 'Great Array'--all placed here because weather is rarely ever an issue here--plus we have the Los Alamos Natonal Labs put here because of its remoteness at the time it was put here and its companion Sandia Labs in Albuquerque positioned to easily work with Los Alamos and numerous research groups placed at Kirtland AFB here.

How much has New Mexico benefitted from all that lovely federal money?  We have some of the nation's poorest people, one of the hgher crime rates, are at the bottom of education, health care, quality of life and a lot of other key indicator rankings, and have very high unemployment despite an unemployment percentage below the national average--most New Mexicans who need work have just given up.

But the percentages are also relative.   27% of money received/spent in New Mexico is allocated by the Federal government.  Only 16% of California's budget comes from the federal government.

But New Mexico receives only 8% of what California receives from the Federal government - 4.5 billion to New Mexico compared to 57.7 billion to California.

But you add up all those allocations to all 50 states and it totals about a half trillion against a 3.5+ trillion dollar budget because social security, medicare, and federal pensions are not included in those numbers.


----------



## RKMBrown

numan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see from your map that Texas is quite a leader in poverty, as well as in its traditional lead in insanity.
> 
> Is that because of your rugged individualism?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Partly, yes.  We have learned to live as kings on much less money than northern folks live in poverty.  My ranch on a creek with a nice sized home would cost two orders of magnitude more in boston, san-francisco, NYC... poverty rates do not accurately reflect happiness or comfort.

Additionally, Texas has a lot of illegal immigrants who start out in poverty.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red States Are Welfare Queens
> 
> As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States  the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut  are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.
> 
> Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.
> 
> Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.
> 
> New Mexico: $2.03
> Mississippi: $2.02
> Alaska: $1.84
> Louisiana: $1.78
> West Virginia: $1.76
> North Dakota: $1.68
> Alabama: $1.66
> South Dakota: $1.53
> Kentucky: $1.51
> Virginia: $1.51
> Montana: $1.47
> Hawaii: $1.44
> Maine: $1.41
> Arkansas: $1.41
> Oklahoma: $1.36
> South Carolina: $1.35
> Missouri: $1.32
> Maryland: $1.30
> Tennessee: $1.27
> Idaho: $1.21
> 
> Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.
> 
> Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.
> 
> Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your little list is take a look at the populations of the states you are complaining about vs those states you think are so great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More to the point, a great lion's share of those federal expenditures are for federal installations like military bases and such.  New Mexico seems to get a disproportionate share because we have three large military bases here plus the White Sands missile proving grounds and the scientific 'Great Array'--all placed here because weather is rarely ever an issue here--plus we have the Los Alamos Natonal Labs put here because of its remoteness at the time it was put here and its companion Sandia Labs in Albuquerque positioned to easily work with Los Alamos and numerous research groups placed at Kirtland AFB here.
> 
> How much has New Mexico benefitted from all that lovely federal money?  We have some of the nation's poorest people, one of the hgher crime rates, are at the bottom of education, health care, quality of life and a lot of other key indicator rankings, and have very high unemployment despite an unemployment percentage below the national average--most New Mexicans who need work have just given up.
> 
> But the percentages are also relative.   27% of money received/spent in New Mexico is allocated by the Federal government.  Only 16% of California's budget comes from the federal government.
> 
> But New Mexico receives only 8% of what California receives from the Federal government - 4.5 billion to New Mexico compared to 57.7 billion to California.
> 
> But you add up all those allocations to all 50 states and it totals about a half trillion against a 3.5+ trillion dollar budget because social security, medicare, and federal pensions are not included in those numbers.
Click to expand...


Additionally, a great many Americans work in rich states with high rates of pay and high costs of living, then retire to states with lower costs of living.


----------



## thanatos144

numan said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cost of living is diffrent in Texas commie
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they charge poor people more for things in Texas, Boobie?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Such hate and jealousies in you  I'm guessing your mommy told you could do whatever you wanted in the world then you realize you couldn't cause you're too f****** stupid


----------



## Foxfyre

But to further put into perspective all that federal money that the modern 'liberal' always qualifies as 'compassion', what if we had done it the modern 'conservative' aka 'classical liberal' way?

The federal government would still be performing its constitutionally mandated functions and ONLY its constitutionally mandated functions  and, except for possibly the military, there would be no post employment entitlements of any kind.  And because there would be no pork allocated and no subsidies hidden in the defense budget et al, the government would be able to do its constitutionally mandated functions with say 1/4th of what it now spends and would balance its budget as much as possible every year.

Most of the rest of all that money would be left with the people to use to save (so money would be available for others to borrow), to invest in growing businesses, providing good secure employment for people, spent without taking money out of the economy which is what true economic stimulus is, and used in philanthropic projects to help those unable to help themselves,  build hospital wings and museums and libraries and otherwise improve the quality of life.

To promote an economy capable of supporting the people via the dignity of work and honest earnings and increasing the quality of life is also compassion in the eyes of the classical liberal.


----------



## CandySlice

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> True and unfortunate. But for most people, 'liberal' means Democrat and 'conservative' means Republican. Neither of these is accurate, so it makes these discussions confusing at best. Are we talking about real 'liberal' values, or the authoritarian/corporatist ideology of the Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to keep linguistic terms stable and stop morphing them into their own opposites.  Nothing good can come of that.  Let's recognize that "liberal", "leftist", "conservative" and "rightist" are _four _different things, not two.
> 
> But let's be clear: BOTH political parties are corporatist.  Eisenhower warned us about that on his way out the door, and he was absolutely correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But unless you understand what is opposite of what, and unless the terms are defined, no coherent debate or even a conversation is possible.
> 
> You are correct that political parties are not useful to use as definitions, nor is any individual or group or demographic, nor is pointing to present or past sins.  Even previous historical definitions or dictionaries are not that useful in how Americans understand those terms.
> 
> In the simplest terms, 'left' in American vernacular is looking to government for solutions and results and 'right' is looking to the individual for solutions and results.
> 
> American liberals/statists/political class look to government to create the sort of society they think they want.
> 
> American consevatives/classical liberals/libertarians (small "L") look to the government to secure our unalienable rights and allow the various states to function as one nation and then leave us alone to govern ourselves and form whateve sort of societies we wish to have.
Click to expand...


Perfect. That's the best explaination I've ever seen.


----------



## CandySlice

RKMBrown said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see from your map that Texas is quite a leader in poverty, as well as in its traditional lead in insanity.
> 
> Is that because of your rugged individualism?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Partly, yes.  We have learned to live as kings on much less money than northern folks live in poverty.  My ranch on a creek with a nice sized home would cost two orders of magnitude more in boston, san-francisco, NYC... poverty rates do not accurately reflect happiness or comfort.
> 
> Additionally, Texas has a lot of illegal immigrants who start out in poverty.
Click to expand...


Numan, it's starting hurt, watching you stumble around tripping over your own tongue. You are clearly out-gunned here. Cut your loses and run.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no I mean moochers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


As the rightwing still whines about a $35 a month cell phone

But since cellphones were once a symbol of wealth, we can't have ignorant black women having them....can we?

I bet she has one of them color TVs and a high philut'n microwave oven


----------



## Foxfyre

Ben Franklin was no saint and put his pants on one leg at a time like most guys do--imperfect and flawed in some ways as all people are, but brilliant and bright and blessed with amazing common sense as almost all imperfect people boast some virtues.

But he had it right.  To paraphrase:   to encourage poverty--to make people more comfortable in it--is not compassion.  Compassion is showing them the way to overcome poverty and leading or driving them out of it.

Even if the way to do that is to require work for welfare, that is true compassion.  Children should not grow up seeing the parent live fairly decently on the government dole and developing a concept that such government support was his right as a citizen and deciding it was preferable to doing the hard work of educating himself, putting in his dues to acquire marketable skills, develop a work ethic, and acquire references that would enable himself to support himself and a family.  That is not compassion.

Children should grow up seeing the parent get up, get cleaned up, get dressed, and go out to work for money to pay the rent and light bill and put groceries on the table.  And if the parent has to do that for a government pittance, he or she is likely to decide if s/he has to work anyway, s/he might as well make it worth his/her while and get a real job that pays better. 

In the classical liberal view, that is compassion.


----------



## Foxfyre

CandySlice said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to keep linguistic terms stable and stop morphing them into their own opposites.  Nothing good can come of that.  Let's recognize that "liberal", "leftist", "conservative" and "rightist" are _four _different things, not two.
> 
> But let's be clear: BOTH political parties are corporatist.  Eisenhower warned us about that on his way out the door, and he was absolutely correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But unless you understand what is opposite of what, and unless the terms are defined, no coherent debate or even a conversation is possible.
> 
> You are correct that political parties are not useful to use as definitions, nor is any individual or group or demographic, nor is pointing to present or past sins.  Even previous historical definitions or dictionaries are not that useful in how Americans understand those terms.
> 
> In the simplest terms, 'left' in American vernacular is looking to government for solutions and results and 'right' is looking to the individual for solutions and results.
> 
> American liberals/statists/political class look to government to create the sort of society they think they want.
> 
> American consevatives/classical liberals/libertarians (small "L") look to the government to secure our unalienable rights and allow the various states to function as one nation and then leave us alone to govern ourselves and form whateve sort of societies we wish to have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perfect. That's the best explaination I've ever seen.
Click to expand...


Thanks.  You and I make a minority of two who even care about the explanation or definition of terms.  Most of the rest seem interested in playing the 'whose is blackest' game or complain that any definitions are used at all.


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> Ben Franklin was no saint and put his pants on one leg at a time like most guys do--imperfect and flawed in some ways as all people are, but brilliant and bright and blessed with amazing common sense as almost all imperfect people boast some virtues.
> 
> But he had it right.  To paraphrase:   to encourage poverty--to make people more comfortable in it--is not compassion.  Compassion is showing them the way to overcome poverty and leading or driving them out of it.
> 
> Even if the way to do that is to require work for welfare, that is true compassion.  Children should not grow up seeing the parent live fairly decently on the government dole and developing a concept that such government support was his right as a citizen and deciding it was preferable to doing the hard work of educating himself, putting in his dues to acquire marketable skills, develop a work ethic, and acquire references that would enable himself to support himself and a family.  That is not compassion.
> 
> Children should grow up seeing the parent get up, get cleaned up, get dressed, and go out to work for money to pay the rent and light bill and put groceries on the table.  And if the parent has to do that for a government pittance, he or she is likely to decide if s/he has to work anyway, s/he might as well make it worth his/her while and get a real job that pays better.
> 
> In the classical liberal view, that is compassion.



To give old Ben a break, he was a product of his time

This was still a pre-Dickensonian world of debtors prisons and poor farms. In fact, we still had slaves. 

To take the advice of founding fathers on how the lower classes should be treated is not advisable


----------



## numan

Bfgrn said:


> Red States Are Welfare Queens
> 
> As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States  the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut  are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.
> 
> Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.
> 
> Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.
> 
> New Mexico: $2.03
> Mississippi: $2.02
> Alaska: $1.84
> Louisiana: $1.78
> West Virginia: $1.76
> North Dakota: $1.68
> Alabama: $1.66
> South Dakota: $1.53
> Kentucky: $1.51
> Virginia: $1.51
> Montana: $1.47
> Hawaii: $1.44
> Maine: $1.41
> Arkansas: $1.41
> Oklahoma: $1.36
> South Carolina: $1.35
> Missouri: $1.32
> Maryland: $1.30
> Tennessee: $1.27
> Idaho: $1.21
> 
> Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.
> 
> Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.
> 
> Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider


That is really quite amusing.
.


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the rightwing still whines about a $35 a month cell phone
> 
> But since cellphones were once a symbol of wealth, we can't have ignorant black women having them....can we?
> 
> I bet she has one of them color TVs and a high philut'n microwave oven
Click to expand...


I have 5 people in my family cell phone plan.  5x35 is 175 a month.   The original idea for the emergency phone was for remote locations where there are no phones to be given access to an emergency phone line.  Emergency cell phones are "free."  You can take any cell phone and use it to make an emergency cell phone call for free.  No plan is required.  There is no reason we need to be giving people cell phone minutes so they can make non-emergency phone calls.


----------



## numan

RKMBrown said:


> There is no reason we need to be giving people cell phone minutes so they can make non-emergency phone calls.


You're really quite funny, Tex.

.


----------



## CandySlice

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the rightwing still whines about a $35 a month cell phone
> 
> But since cellphones were once a symbol of wealth, we can't have ignorant black women having them....can we?
> 
> I bet she has one of them color TVs and a high philut'n microwave oven
Click to expand...


That's right. All this while her kids go hungry in deference to her crack habit and her propensity to produce unlimited children with various baby-daddies that abscond immediately leaving us to provide for them. Now THERE'S a statistic for you. Number of illigitimate children per capita.


----------



## Dragonlady

The very idea that the poor be given a vehicle which they use to contact their children's schools in the event of an emergency or so that the schools can contact the parents in the event of an emergency, or to perhaps make appointments to see doctors, case workers,  parole officers or what have you, would never enter into the heads of right-wingers.

Not having to chase down people with no phones or internet, right-wingers only see the poor getting something for nothing without seeing why it's in the state's best interest for people to have access to a phone.  I say that the savings alone in the time spent by government paid employees trying to contact people with no phone is more than worth it.

But then when I look at government spending, I try t o find value for the money.  A cheap free cell phone, especially for parents of school age children, would seem to be a smart investment.  By restricting these phones to emergency calls only, schools cannot contact parents unless they send someone out to visit them.  In cases of medical emergency, privacy laws prevent the schools from divulging the reasons for their calls to  someone other than parents, so in an emergency time is lost if the parent cannot be called directly.

And, in addiition to which, you cannot get a job, if you do not have a phone.  Prospective employers have to be able to contact you too.  A phone in this day an age, for so many reasons, is a necessity.


----------



## numan

'

I see you are a Texan, too, Candy.

Maybe you and Mr. Stetson above can work up a comedy act together.

The kids going hungry due to the mother's crack habit, is classic tarring everyone with the same brush and kicking someone when they're down. Classic one-two punch slapstick, eh, Candy?

.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the rightwing still whines about a $35 a month cell phone
> 
> But since cellphones were once a symbol of wealth, we can't have ignorant black women having them....can we?
> 
> I bet she has one of them color TVs and a high philut'n microwave oven
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have 5 people in my family cell phone plan.  5x35 is 175 a month.   The original idea for the emergency phone was for remote locations where there are no phones to be given access to an emergency phone line.  Emergency cell phones are "free."  You can take any cell phone and use it to make an emergency cell phone call for free.  No plan is required.  There is no reason we need to be giving people cell phone minutes so they can make non-emergency phone calls.
Click to expand...


You know what?

That bitch might even have access to the INTERNET


----------



## Foxfyre

Dragonlady said:


> The very idea that the poor be given a vehicle which they use to contact their children's schools in the event of an emergency or so that the schools can contact the parents in the event of an emergency, or to perhaps make appointments to see doctors, case workers,  parole officers or what have you, would never enter into the heads of right-wingers.
> 
> Not having to chase down people with no phones or internet, right-wingers only see the poor getting something for nothing without seeing why it's in the state's best interest for people to have access to a phone.  I say that the savings alone in the time spent by government paid employees trying to contact people with no phone is more than worth it.
> 
> But then when I look at government spending, I try t o find value for the money.  A cheap free cell phone, especially for parents of school age children, would seem to be a smart investment.  By restricting these phones to emergency calls only, schools cannot contact parents unless they send someone out to visit them.  In cases of medical emergency, privacy laws prevent the schools from divulging the reasons for their calls to  someone other than parents, so in an emergency time is lost if the parent cannot be called directly.
> 
> And, in addiition to which, you cannot get a job, if you do not have a phone.  Prospective employers have to be able to contact you too.  A phone in this day an age, for so many reasons, is a necessity.



Yours must be a state unto itself because in most states you only have to be at a certain income level to qualify for a free phone and virtually unlimited minutes.   One per household, technically, and no illegals qualify but neither provision is being enforced.  I work with low income families all the time, and I have yet to run across anybody who doesn't have a phone.  Most have cell phones AND a land line.

If they MUST make cell phones accessible to people, then have the people pay for them, if only a fraction of their actual cost.  Even a nominal fee would discourage those who don't NEED the phone from getting one.  

And I wonder how my parents raised their family and I raised my family before the advent of cell phones?  Never occurred to us that such a thing was a necessity.  But oh well.  Working for what you want and need was not out of style back then, and it wasn't considered demeaning or humiliating to ask people to pay for what they got.  In fact not paying your own way back then was considered humilitating and demeaning. 

But oh well. . . .modern liberalism is so superior to that, eh?


----------



## Immanuel

Dragonlady said:


> The very idea that the poor be given a vehicle which they use to contact their children's schools in the event of an emergency or so that the schools can contact the parents in the event of an emergency, or to perhaps make appointments to see doctors, case workers,  parole officers or what have you, would never enter into the heads of right-wingers.
> 
> Not having to chase down people with no phones or internet, right-wingers only see the poor getting something for nothing without seeing why it's in the state's best interest for people to have access to a phone.  I say that the savings alone in the time spent by government paid employees trying to contact people with no phone is more than worth it.
> 
> But then when I look at government spending, I try t o find value for the money.  A cheap free cell phone, especially for parents of school age children, would seem to be a smart investment.  By restricting these phones to emergency calls only, schools cannot contact parents unless they send someone out to visit them.  In cases of medical emergency, privacy laws prevent the schools from divulging the reasons for their calls to  someone other than parents, so in an emergency time is lost if the parent cannot be called directly.
> 
> And, in addiition to which, you cannot get a job, if you do not have a phone.  Prospective employers have to be able to contact you too.  A phone in this day an age, for so many reasons, is a necessity.



That is actually the best defense I have read about the program.

However, you mention government spending and the first thing that comes to my mind is "six hundred dollar toilet seats".  I wonder how much per phone the federal government is spending on this program.

I would feel a lot better about this program if it were state and/or local government run rather than federal government, as I don't believe the federal government can do anything efficiently.  Our federal deficit is way too high and I believe we should cut everywhere.  On the other hand, programs that help people get jobs, stay in contact with important people such as schools as you mentioned should be promoted.  Then again, I am certain it is being abused.

Also, the idiot woman shown above did not help the cause when she appeared on YouTube.

Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube

Immie


----------



## RKMBrown

Immanuel said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very idea that the poor be given a vehicle which they use to contact their children's schools in the event of an emergency or so that the schools can contact the parents in the event of an emergency, or to perhaps make appointments to see doctors, case workers,  parole officers or what have you, would never enter into the heads of right-wingers.
> 
> Not having to chase down people with no phones or internet, right-wingers only see the poor getting something for nothing without seeing why it's in the state's best interest for people to have access to a phone.  I say that the savings alone in the time spent by government paid employees trying to contact people with no phone is more than worth it.
> 
> But then when I look at government spending, I try t o find value for the money.  A cheap free cell phone, especially for parents of school age children, would seem to be a smart investment.  By restricting these phones to emergency calls only, schools cannot contact parents unless they send someone out to visit them.  In cases of medical emergency, privacy laws prevent the schools from divulging the reasons for their calls to  someone other than parents, so in an emergency time is lost if the parent cannot be called directly.
> 
> And, in addiition to which, you cannot get a job, if you do not have a phone.  Prospective employers have to be able to contact you too.  A phone in this day an age, for so many reasons, is a necessity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is actually the best defense I have read about the program.
> 
> However, you mention government spending and the first thing that comes to my mind is "six hundred dollar toilet seats".  I wonder how much per phone the federal government is spending on this program.
> 
> I would feel a lot better about this program if it were state and/or local government run rather than federal government, as I don't believe the federal government can do anything efficiently.  Our federal deficit is way too high and I believe we should cut everywhere.  On the other hand, programs that help people get jobs, stay in contact with important people such as schools as you mentioned should be promoted.  Then again, I am certain it is being abused.
> 
> Also, the idiot woman shown above did not help the cause when she appeared on YouTube.
> 
> Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


The program is funded by paying customers of the cell phone companies.   The moochers get their cell phones for nothing, and we get to pay a higher cost for our phone service to account for their cell phones.  Government mandated redistribution at it's best.


----------



## Immanuel

RKMBrown said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very idea that the poor be given a vehicle which they use to contact their children's schools in the event of an emergency or so that the schools can contact the parents in the event of an emergency, or to perhaps make appointments to see doctors, case workers,  parole officers or what have you, would never enter into the heads of right-wingers.
> 
> Not having to chase down people with no phones or internet, right-wingers only see the poor getting something for nothing without seeing why it's in the state's best interest for people to have access to a phone.  I say that the savings alone in the time spent by government paid employees trying to contact people with no phone is more than worth it.
> 
> But then when I look at government spending, I try t o find value for the money.  A cheap free cell phone, especially for parents of school age children, would seem to be a smart investment.  By restricting these phones to emergency calls only, schools cannot contact parents unless they send someone out to visit them.  In cases of medical emergency, privacy laws prevent the schools from divulging the reasons for their calls to  someone other than parents, so in an emergency time is lost if the parent cannot be called directly.
> 
> And, in addiition to which, you cannot get a job, if you do not have a phone.  Prospective employers have to be able to contact you too.  A phone in this day an age, for so many reasons, is a necessity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is actually the best defense I have read about the program.
> 
> However, you mention government spending and the first thing that comes to my mind is "six hundred dollar toilet seats".  I wonder how much per phone the federal government is spending on this program.
> 
> I would feel a lot better about this program if it were state and/or local government run rather than federal government, as I don't believe the federal government can do anything efficiently.  Our federal deficit is way too high and I believe we should cut everywhere.  On the other hand, programs that help people get jobs, stay in contact with important people such as schools as you mentioned should be promoted.  Then again, I am certain it is being abused.
> 
> Also, the idiot woman shown above did not help the cause when she appeared on YouTube.
> 
> Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The program is funded by paying customers of the cell phone companies.   The moochers get their cell phones for nothing, and we get to pay a higher cost for our phone service to account for their cell phones.  Government mandated redistribution at it's best.
Click to expand...


That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program.  It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is.  As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.

Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need.  I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help.  I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism.  I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.

We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.

/sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.

Immie


----------



## RKMBrown

Immanuel said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is actually the best defense I have read about the program.
> 
> However, you mention government spending and the first thing that comes to my mind is "six hundred dollar toilet seats".  I wonder how much per phone the federal government is spending on this program.
> 
> I would feel a lot better about this program if it were state and/or local government run rather than federal government, as I don't believe the federal government can do anything efficiently.  Our federal deficit is way too high and I believe we should cut everywhere.  On the other hand, programs that help people get jobs, stay in contact with important people such as schools as you mentioned should be promoted.  Then again, I am certain it is being abused.
> 
> Also, the idiot woman shown above did not help the cause when she appeared on YouTube.
> 
> Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The program is funded by paying customers of the cell phone companies.   The moochers get their cell phones for nothing, and we get to pay a higher cost for our phone service to account for their cell phones.  Government mandated redistribution at it's best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program.  It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is.  As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.
> 
> Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need.  I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help.  I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism.  I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.
> 
> We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.
> 
> /sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Charity should be voluntary.  Charity should be personal.  Charity should be for those who need it.  Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy.  When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy.  When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks.  When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all.  That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming.  Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.


----------



## Immanuel

RKMBrown said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The program is funded by paying customers of the cell phone companies.   The moochers get their cell phones for nothing, and we get to pay a higher cost for our phone service to account for their cell phones.  Government mandated redistribution at it's best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program.  It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is.  As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.
> 
> Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need.  I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help.  I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism.  I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.
> 
> We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.
> 
> /sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Charity should be voluntary.  Charity should be personal.  Charity should be for those who need it.  Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy.  When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy.  When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks.  When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all.  That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming.  Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.
Click to expand...


I don't usually mention when I rep someone, but this is an exception.  Well said.

And while I agree with you completely, let me state, that conservatives need to stop sounding like they are blaming the poor and instead go after the fat cat progressives in DC.

Pos rep sent your way.

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Ben Franklin was no saint and put his pants on one leg at a time like most guys do--imperfect and flawed in some ways as all people are, but brilliant and bright and blessed with amazing common sense as almost all imperfect people boast some virtues.
> 
> But he had it right.  To paraphrase:   to encourage poverty--to make people more comfortable in it--is not compassion.  Compassion is showing them the way to overcome poverty and leading or driving them out of it.
> 
> Even if the way to do that is to require work for welfare, that is true compassion.  Children should not grow up seeing the parent live fairly decently on the government dole and developing a concept that such government support was his right as a citizen and deciding it was preferable to doing the hard work of educating himself, putting in his dues to acquire marketable skills, develop a work ethic, and acquire references that would enable himself to support himself and a family.  That is not compassion.
> 
> Children should grow up seeing the parent get up, get cleaned up, get dressed, and go out to work for money to pay the rent and light bill and put groceries on the table.  And if the parent has to do that for a government pittance, he or she is likely to decide if s/he has to work anyway, s/he might as well make it worth his/her while and get a real job that pays better.
> 
> In the classical liberal view, that is compassion.



"The simplest description of the War on Poverty is that it is a means of making life available for any and all pursuers. It does not try to make men good -- because that is moralizing. It does not try to give men what they want -- because that is catering. It does not try to give men false hopes -- because that is deception. Instead, the War on Poverty tries only to create the conditions by which the good life can be lived -- and that is humanism."
Robert Sargent "Sarge" Shriver, Jr.


I imagine Sargent Shriver had old Ben in mind when he designed the War on Poverty. Ironic that conservatives railed against it and Nixon did his best to gut it.

The War on Poverty was based on opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. 

The War on Poverty was a program that any conservative should support. But right wing turds just TALK about opportunity, when all they really believe in is punishment and hatred.

The War on Poverty, what it is and isn't...

There's always the 'able bodied but lazy poor person', the 'bleeding heart liberal' who just wants to hand out other people's money and of course, the clear headed 'conservative' whose 'tough love' always saves the day. Well, I refuse to play along. If you have the intelligence and curiosity to find out what the 'War on Poverty' was about and what it wasn't about, it would save conservatives from all the bloviation.

When JFK's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished. 

To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action. The 'War on Poverty' was called the *Office of Economic Opportunity*. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's aims were maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)Ref

Here is one of the agencies created by the WOP...

Job Corps is a program administered by the United States Department of Labor that offers free-of-charge education and vocational training to youth ages 16 to 24.

Job Corps offers career planning, on-the-job training, job placement, residential housing, food service, driver's education, basic health and dental care, a bi-weekly basic living allowance and clothing allowance. Some centers offer childcare programs for single parents as well.

Besides vocational training, the Job Corps program also offers academic training, including basic reading and math, GED attainment, college preparatory, and Limited English Proficiency courses. Some centers also offer programs that allow students to remain in residence at their center while attending college.[citation needed] Job Corps provides career counseling and transition support to its students for up to one year after they graduate from the program.

Career paths

Career paths offered by Job Corps include:

Advanced manufacturing

    Communication design
    Drafting
    Electronic assembly
    Machine appliance repair
    Machining
    Welding
    Manufacturing technology
    Sign, billboard, and display

Automotive and machine repair

    Automobile technician
    General services technician
    Collision repair and refinish
    Heavy construction equipment mechanic
    Diesel mechanic
    Medium/heavy truck repair
    Electronics tech
    Stationary engineering

Construction

    Bricklaying
    Carpentry
    Cement masonry
    Concrete and terrazzo
    Construction craft laborer
    Electrical
    Electrical overhead line
    Facilities maintenance
    Floor covering
    Glazing
    HVAC
    Industrial engineering technician
    Licensed electrician (bilingual)
    Mechanical engineering technician
    Painting
    Plastering
    Plumbing
    Roto-Rooter plumbing
    Tile setting

Extension programs

    Advanced Career Training (ACT)
    General Educational Development (GED)
    Commercial driver's license (CDL)
    Off-Center Training (OCT Program)
    High school diploma (HSD Program)

Finance and Business

    Accounting services
    Business management
    Clerical occupations
    Legal secretary
    Insurance and financial services
    Marketing
    Medical insurance specialist
    Office administration
    Paralegal
    Purchasing

Health care/allied health professions

    Clinical medical assistant
    Dental assistant
    EKG technician
    Emergency medical technician
    Exercise/massage therapy
    Hemodialysis technician
    Licensed practical/vocational nurse
    Medical office support
    Nurse assistant/home health aide
    Opticianry
    Pharmacy technician
    Phlebotomy
    Physical therapy assistant
    Rehabilitation therapy
    Rehabilitation technician
    Registered nurse
    Respiratory therapy
    Sterile processing
    Surgical technician

Homeland security

    Corrections officer
    Seamanship
    Security and protective services

Hospitality

    Culinary arts
    Hotel and lodging

Information technology

    A+ Microsoft MSCE
    Computer Networking/Cisco
    Computer systems administrator
    Computer support specialist
    Computer technician
    Integrated system tech
    Network cable installation
    Visual communications

Renewable resources and energy

    Forest conservation and urban forestry
    Firefighting
    Wastewater
    Landscaping

Retail sales and services

    Behavioral health aide
    Criminal justice
    Child development
    Residential advisor
    Cosmetology
    Retail sales

Transportation

    Asphalt paving
    Material and distribution operations
    Clerical occupations
    Heavy equipment operations
    Roustabout operator
    Heavy truck driving
    TCU administrative clerk

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## RKMBrown

Immanuel said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program.  It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is.  As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.
> 
> Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need.  I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help.  I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism.  I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.
> 
> We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.
> 
> /sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charity should be voluntary.  Charity should be personal.  Charity should be for those who need it.  Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy.  When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy.  When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks.  When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all.  That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming.  Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't usually mention when I rep someone, but this is an exception.  Well said.
> 
> And while I agree with you completely, let me state, that conservatives need to stop sounding like they are blaming the poor and instead go after the fat cat progressives in DC.
> 
> Pos rep sent your way.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Thx and I agree on your point about conservatives.  When we attack government welfare its hard not to sound like scrooge.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

RKMBrown said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The program is funded by paying customers of the cell phone companies.   The moochers get their cell phones for nothing, and we get to pay a higher cost for our phone service to account for their cell phones.  Government mandated redistribution at it's best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program.  It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is.  As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.
> 
> Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need.  I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help.  I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism.  I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.
> 
> We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.
> 
> /sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Charity should be voluntary.  Charity should be personal.  Charity should be for those who need it.  Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy.  When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy.  When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks.  When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all.  That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming.  Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.
Click to expand...


Obviously you dont understand how public assistance works. 

Unfortunately you know only rightist myth. 

Needless to say this is completely inaccurate; if interested you might want to research the subject to learn the facts and truth. 

Or continue to exhibit your ignorance pursuing a partisan agenda.


----------



## Wolfsister77

RKMBrown said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The program is funded by paying customers of the cell phone companies.   The moochers get their cell phones for nothing, and we get to pay a higher cost for our phone service to account for their cell phones.  Government mandated redistribution at it's best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program.  It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is.  As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.
> 
> Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need.  I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help.  I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism.  I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.
> 
> We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.
> 
> /sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Charity should be voluntary.  Charity should be personal.  Charity should be for those who need it.  Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy.  When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy.  When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks.  When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all.  That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming.  Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.
Click to expand...


Actually you are completely wrong about how public assistance works. I'd correct you but I think you need to actually go read up some and educate yourself. This post is just sad and insulting to those that need public assistance. Since your rep is under 200, I won't neg you for this at this time. I hope the day never comes that you need help.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Immanuel said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program.  It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is.  As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.
> 
> Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need.  I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help.  I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism.  I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.
> 
> We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.
> 
> /sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charity should be voluntary.  Charity should be personal.  Charity should be for those who need it.  Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy.  When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy.  When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks.  When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all.  That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming.  Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't usually mention when I rep someone, but this is an exception.  Well said.
> 
> And while I agree with you completely, let me state, that conservatives need to stop sounding like they are blaming the poor and instead go after the fat cat progressives in DC.
> 
> Pos rep sent your way.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


And unfortunately youre endorsing that ignorance.   

I once worked in my states public assistance program, spent 13 years assisting the people you and others on the right disparage, the last 9 of those years spent investigating fraud, addressing QC and training, and representing the state in administrative hearings. 

The ignorance expressed by conservative subscribers to this thread concerning the poor, poverty, and public assistance is immense and comprehensive; all of you sound ignorant and ridiculous.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The program is funded by paying customers of the cell phone companies.   The moochers get their cell phones for nothing, and we get to pay a higher cost for our phone service to account for their cell phones.  Government mandated redistribution at it's best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program.  It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is.  As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.
> 
> Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need.  I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help.  I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism.  I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.
> 
> We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.
> 
> /sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Charity should be voluntary.  Charity should be personal.  Charity should be for those who need it.  Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy.  When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy.  When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks.  When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all.  That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming.  Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.
Click to expand...


I have no problem helping those in real need either which is why I have devoted several decades of my life in vocations and avocations that did just that, hands on, up close and personal.  So don't anybody try to give me the song and dance that I don't know what I am talking about.   And it is well documented that those who identify themselves as 'conservative' these days are more personally generous than are those who identfy themselves as 'libertarian' or 'liberal' or 'moderate'.   So it isn't a matter of greed either.

I do have a huge problem with the federal government confiscating property from working Americans, swallowing up two thirds of the taxes confiscated just to feed an ever more bloated and self serving government, and then doling out the remainder on a one-size-fits-all but keep the politicians in office in return for the favors system.  Most especially when going on five decades of that system has not reduced the number of the poor and almost every social indicator related to federal anti-poverty programs has indicated negatively during that same period even as our national debt approaches our GDP and bankruptcy of the country.

Charity should be a private matter or at best generated and administered in local cooperative programs.   We need a constitutional amendment that prohibits the federal government from using the people's money to benefit ANYBODY--individual, entity, group, or demographic--unless it benefits all Americans simultaneously.   Do that, and we will have a lot fewer poor, a lot more money available to help the poor, and 90% of the federal problems we have will evaporate.


----------



## Immanuel

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charity should be voluntary.  Charity should be personal.  Charity should be for those who need it.  Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy.  When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy.  When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks.  When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all.  That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming.  Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't usually mention when I rep someone, but this is an exception.  Well said.
> 
> And while I agree with you completely, let me state, that conservatives need to stop sounding like they are blaming the poor and instead go after the fat cat progressives in DC.
> 
> Pos rep sent your way.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And unfortunately youre endorsing that ignorance.
> 
> I once worked in my states public assistance program, spent 13 years assisting the people you and others on the right disparage, the last 9 of those years spent investigating fraud, addressing QC and training, and representing the state in administrative hearings.
> 
> The ignorance expressed by conservative subscribers to this thread concerning the poor, poverty, and public assistance is immense and comprehensive; all of you sound ignorant and ridiculous.
Click to expand...


As usual, you are full of shit.

The only person I disparaged was the idiot in the video.  Well, maybe I disparaged DC progressives as well.

The fact Is that you progressives use the poor but really don't give a shit about them.  All you care about is their votes every four years.

And, as I clearly stated I have no problem assisting the needy.  I simply believe the federal government is extremely inefficient.  I'd love for you to prove me wrong, but don't believe you can.

Immie


----------



## RKMBrown

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charity should be voluntary.  Charity should be personal.  Charity should be for those who need it.  Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy.  When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy.  When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks.  When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all.  That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming.  Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't usually mention when I rep someone, but this is an exception.  Well said.
> 
> And while I agree with you completely, let me state, that conservatives need to stop sounding like they are blaming the poor and instead go after the fat cat progressives in DC.
> 
> Pos rep sent your way.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And unfortunately youre endorsing that ignorance.
> 
> I once worked in my states public assistance program, spent 13 years assisting the people you and others on the right disparage, the last 9 of those years spent investigating fraud, addressing QC and training, and representing the state in administrative hearings.
> 
> The ignorance expressed by conservative subscribers to this thread concerning the poor, poverty, and public assistance is immense and comprehensive; all of you sound ignorant and ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You did not find it odd at all that you needed to spend NINE YEARS INVESTIGATING FRAUD?  I've been involved with many successful charitable organizations. My church, Habitat where my parents work, and a Salvation Army store where my parents work.   Fraud was never an issue with these charities and no one was FORCED AT GUN POINT to donate to these charities either.


----------



## Immanuel

Wolfsister77 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program.  It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is.  As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.
> 
> Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need.  I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help.  I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism.  I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.
> 
> We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.
> 
> /sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charity should be voluntary.  Charity should be personal.  Charity should be for those who need it.  Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy.  When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy.  When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks.  When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all.  That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming.  Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you are completely wrong about how public assistance works. I'd correct you but I think you need to actually go read up some and educate yourself. This post is just sad and insulting to those that need public assistance. Since your rep is under 200, I won't neg you for this at this time. I hope the day never comes that you need help.
Click to expand...


I have needed and accepted help. I lost my job just before I turned 49 and it took me more than two years to find a replacement.  I understand the need for public assistance.  I don't know what I would have done without unemployment extensions and eventually bankruptcy.

I have no problem with helping the needy.  I stated that before.  I don't blame the needy.  I blame the fat cats in Washington, regardless of party.  But I am convinced there has to be a better way.  I am also convinced, Washington politicians don't give a rat's ass about the rest of us.  I am convinced that there is not one single compassionate bone on Capital Hill.  They are using and abusing us.

There has to be a better way!  Welfare for instance, currently it is a hand out.  People fall into it and are encouraged to stay on it by the progressives in power. it would be so much better if welfare actually provided job training and did things like assist single parents with daycare so that they could get back on their feet.

I truly believe Social Security should be an investment in the individual's retirement.  It should be mandatory but the majority of the taxes taken should go into a retirement plan for the taxpayer and should he or she pass on before retirement those funds should go to their family members.  That being said there needs to be provisions for the disabled and those who pass away much earlier than they can build a nest egg under the plan.  And believe me, I understand that we currently have an issue with those who are already at or near retirement.  We cannot abandon them.  I am going to drop this here because this discussion is better left for another thread.

Suffice it to say, I am not opposed to public assistance.  I do, however, believe we could be much more efficient at our public assistance.

I also agree with Brown.  Public assistance is in fact redistribution of wealth and as he stated, it is done so at the barrel of a gun.  It would be wonderful if our churches, synagogues, mosques or what have you could meet the needs of the needy, but let's be realistic that can't and won't happen, partially because most of them are as corrupt as Washington, DC.

In a perfect world, we would not need the government to feed the needy or provide them with a cell phone, but this world is by no means perfect.

I'm sorry you think I am so evil because I believe we could do better for the poor than we are right now.

Immie


----------



## Foxfyre

Immanuel said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charity should be voluntary.  Charity should be personal.  Charity should be for those who need it.  Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy.  When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy.  When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks.  When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all.  That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming.  Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you are completely wrong about how public assistance works. I'd correct you but I think you need to actually go read up some and educate yourself. This post is just sad and insulting to those that need public assistance. Since your rep is under 200, I won't neg you for this at this time. I hope the day never comes that you need help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have needed and accepted help. I lost my job just before I turned 49 and it took me more than two years to find a replacement.  I understand the need for public assistance.  I don't know what I would have done without unemployment extensions and eventually bankruptcy.
> 
> I have no problem with helping the needy.  I stated that before.  I don't blame the needy.  I blame the fat cats in Washington, regardless of party.  But I am convinced there has to be a better way.  I am also convinced, Washington politicians don't give a rat's ass about the rest of us.  I am convinced that there is not one single compassionate bone on Capital Hill.  They are using and abusing us.
> 
> There has to be a better way!  Welfare for instance, currently it is a hand out.  People fall into it and are encouraged to stay on it by the progressives in power. it would be so much better if welfare actually provided job training and did things like assist single parents with daycare so that they could get back on their feet.
> 
> I truly believe Social Security should be an investment in the individual's retirement.  It should be mandatory but the majority of the taxes taken should go into a retirement plan for the taxpayer and should he or she pass on before retirement those funds should go to their family members.  That being said there needs to be provisions for the disabled and those who pass away much earlier than they can build a nest egg under the plan.  And believe me, I understand that we currently have an issue with those who are already at or near retirement.  We cannot abandon them.  I am going to drop this here because this discussion is better left for another thread.
> 
> Suffice it to say, I am not opposed to public assistance.  I do, however, believe we could be much more efficient at our public assistance.
> 
> I also agree with Brown.  Public assistance is in fact redistribution of wealth and as he stated, it is done so at the barrel of a gun.  It would be wonderful if our churches, synagogues, mosques or what have you could meet the needs of the needy, but let's be realistic that can't and won't happen, partially because most of them are as corrupt as Washington, DC.
> 
> In a perfect world, we would not need the government to feed the needy or provide them with a cell phone, but this world is by no means perfect.
> 
> I'm sorry you think I am so evil because I believe we could do better for the poor than we are right now.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Unemployment, like social security, is not government charity but both are mandatory insurance programs--far less effective than they should be because the government takes so much of the funds just to run the government and doesn't do anything to help the money grow.

But wouldn't you have preferred a job all those long months instead of a subsistance unemployment check?    Just as social security initially was never intended to support anybody but was intended to supplement their meager retirement savings, unemployment was never intended to be a welfare program.  It was intended to help cover expenses for a fairly short period until the employee could start on a new job.  I filed for unemployment once too--there was a three week waiting period before we could get our first check, but I found a job before the three weeks was up.    I told the state to cancel my application but they insisted I take a check for two weeks pay that I was out of work.  That is the sole time I have needed any kind of government assistance because I was 'poor'.

But what is a better way to help the poor?  To encourage them to stay in poverty and penalize them if they start trying to climb out which is what government does to people now?   Or is it giving them a bit of temporary help until they can enter a strong economy with full employment, creating new jobs and new opportunities for all?


----------



## Immanuel

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you are completely wrong about how public assistance works. I'd correct you but I think you need to actually go read up some and educate yourself. This post is just sad and insulting to those that need public assistance. Since your rep is under 200, I won't neg you for this at this time. I hope the day never comes that you need help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have needed and accepted help. I lost my job just before I turned 49 and it took me more than two years to find a replacement.  I understand the need for public assistance.  I don't know what I would have done without unemployment extensions and eventually bankruptcy.
> 
> I have no problem with helping the needy.  I stated that before.  I don't blame the needy.  I blame the fat cats in Washington, regardless of party.  But I am convinced there has to be a better way.  I am also convinced, Washington politicians don't give a rat's ass about the rest of us.  I am convinced that there is not one single compassionate bone on Capital Hill.  They are using and abusing us.
> 
> There has to be a better way!  Welfare for instance, currently it is a hand out.  People fall into it and are encouraged to stay on it by the progressives in power. it would be so much better if welfare actually provided job training and did things like assist single parents with daycare so that they could get back on their feet.
> 
> I truly believe Social Security should be an investment in the individual's retirement.  It should be mandatory but the majority of the taxes taken should go into a retirement plan for the taxpayer and should he or she pass on before retirement those funds should go to their family members.  That being said there needs to be provisions for the disabled and those who pass away much earlier than they can build a nest egg under the plan.  And believe me, I understand that we currently have an issue with those who are already at or near retirement.  We cannot abandon them.  I am going to drop this here because this discussion is better left for another thread.
> 
> Suffice it to say, I am not opposed to public assistance.  I do, however, believe we could be much more efficient at our public assistance.
> 
> I also agree with Brown.  Public assistance is in fact redistribution of wealth and as he stated, it is done so at the barrel of a gun.  It would be wonderful if our churches, synagogues, mosques or what have you could meet the needs of the needy, but let's be realistic that can't and won't happen, partially because most of them are as corrupt as Washington, DC.
> 
> In a perfect world, we would not need the government to feed the needy or provide them with a cell phone, but this world is by no means perfect.
> 
> I'm sorry you think I am so evil because I believe we could do better for the poor than we are right now.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unemployment, like social security, is not government charity but both are mandatory insurance programs--far less effective than they should be because the government takes so much of the funds just to run the government and doesn't do anything to help the money grow.
> 
> But wouldn't you have preferred a job all those long months instead of a subsistance unemployment check?    Just as social security initially was never intended to support anybody but was intended to supplement their meager retirement savings, unemployment was never intended to be a welfare program.  It was intended to help cover expenses for a fairly short period until the employee could start on a new job.  I filed for unemployment once too--there was a three week waiting period before we could get our first check, but I found a job before the three weeks was up.    I told the state to cancel my application but they insisted I take a check for two weeks pay that I was out of work.  That is the sole time I have needed any kind of government assistance because I was 'poor'.
> 
> But what is a better way to help the poor?  To encourage them to stay in poverty and penalize them if they start trying to climb out which is what government does to people now?   Or is it giving them a bit of temporary help until they can enter a strong economy with full employment, creating new jobs and new opportunities for all?
Click to expand...


I have long said that welfare needs to be a hand up not a hand out.

Unfortunately it works more life a whirlpool sucking its victims in than a ladder to allow them to climb out of their troubles.

Immie


----------



## RKMBrown

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have needed and accepted help. I lost my job just before I turned 49 and it took me more than two years to find a replacement.  I understand the need for public assistance.  I don't know what I would have done without unemployment extensions and eventually bankruptcy.
> 
> I have no problem with helping the needy.  I stated that before.  I don't blame the needy.  I blame the fat cats in Washington, regardless of party.  But I am convinced there has to be a better way.  I am also convinced, Washington politicians don't give a rat's ass about the rest of us.  I am convinced that there is not one single compassionate bone on Capital Hill.  They are using and abusing us.
> 
> There has to be a better way!  Welfare for instance, currently it is a hand out.  People fall into it and are encouraged to stay on it by the progressives in power. it would be so much better if welfare actually provided job training and did things like assist single parents with daycare so that they could get back on their feet.
> 
> I truly believe Social Security should be an investment in the individual's retirement.  It should be mandatory but the majority of the taxes taken should go into a retirement plan for the taxpayer and should he or she pass on before retirement those funds should go to their family members.  That being said there needs to be provisions for the disabled and those who pass away much earlier than they can build a nest egg under the plan.  And believe me, I understand that we currently have an issue with those who are already at or near retirement.  We cannot abandon them.  I am going to drop this here because this discussion is better left for another thread.
> 
> Suffice it to say, I am not opposed to public assistance.  I do, however, believe we could be much more efficient at our public assistance.
> 
> I also agree with Brown.  Public assistance is in fact redistribution of wealth and as he stated, it is done so at the barrel of a gun.  It would be wonderful if our churches, synagogues, mosques or what have you could meet the needs of the needy, but let's be realistic that can't and won't happen, partially because most of them are as corrupt as Washington, DC.
> 
> In a perfect world, we would not need the government to feed the needy or provide them with a cell phone, but this world is by no means perfect.
> 
> I'm sorry you think I am so evil because I believe we could do better for the poor than we are right now.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment, like social security, is not government charity but both are mandatory insurance programs--far less effective than they should be because the government takes so much of the funds just to run the government and doesn't do anything to help the money grow.
> 
> But wouldn't you have preferred a job all those long months instead of a subsistance unemployment check?    Just as social security initially was never intended to support anybody but was intended to supplement their meager retirement savings, unemployment was never intended to be a welfare program.  It was intended to help cover expenses for a fairly short period until the employee could start on a new job.  I filed for unemployment once too--there was a three week waiting period before we could get our first check, but I found a job before the three weeks was up.    I told the state to cancel my application but they insisted I take a check for two weeks pay that I was out of work.  That is the sole time I have needed any kind of government assistance because I was 'poor'.
> 
> But what is a better way to help the poor?  To encourage them to stay in poverty and penalize them if they start trying to climb out which is what government does to people now?   Or is it giving them a bit of temporary help until they can enter a strong economy with full employment, creating new jobs and new opportunities for all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have long said that welfare needs to be a hand up not a hand out.
> 
> Unfortunately it works more life a whirlpool sucking its victims in than a ladder to allow them to climb out of their troubles.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Folks like you and Foxfire give me hope.

Hand ups only... hand outs should only be for the folks who are disabled to the point of inability to produce.  

I just can't believe that 1 in five American households can't get by without receiving welfare (food stamps).  That just blows my mind.


----------



## Dragonlady

RKMBrown said:


> I just can't believe that 1 in five American households can't get by without receiving welfare (food stamps).  That just blows my mind.



Thirty years of flat or declining wages in low skill jobs under successive Republican administrations, combined with increased prices, and economic volatility has seen the poor get much poorer under the Republicans.


----------



## RKMBrown

Dragonlady said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just can't believe that 1 in five American households can't get by without receiving welfare (food stamps).  That just blows my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thirty years of flat or declining wages in low skill jobs under successive Republican administrations, combined with increased prices, and economic volatility has seen the poor get much poorer under the Republicans.
Click to expand...


HUH?  Not one democrat administration, not one democrat congress in thirty years? Everything is to blame on the "republicans?"  What is the average salary of a laborer for Heinz?  The democrats had all 3 branches for two years and did nothing.






What have the democrats ever done to get the poor out of poverty?  Can you name one thing?


----------



## Pogo

It's a glaring fallacy to suggest that "Democrats" and "Republicans" are the same difference as "liberal" versus "conservative" or "right" versus "left".  Know what I call 'em?  "Demoplicans" or "Republicrats".  Two sides of the same coin.  To pretend that these two puppets are opposites just because one's dressed in red and the other in blue is to ignore a lot.

To paraphrase Gore Vidal, we can't have a third party in this country, because in order to have a third party you must first have *two other* parties.


----------



## RKMBrown

Pogo said:


> It's a glaring fallacy to suggest that "Democrats" and "Republicans" are the same difference as "liberal" versus "conservative" or "right" versus "left".  Know what I call 'em?  "Demoplicans" or "Republicrats".  Two sides of the same coin.  To pretend that these two puppets are opposites just because one's dressed in red and the other in blue is to ignore a lot.
> 
> To paraphrase Gore Vidal, we can't have a third party in this country, because in order to have a third party you must first have *two other* parties.



Yeah.. but you have to admit there is a significant difference between Rand Paul and Charles Rangel.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> That what government is suppose to provide you fucking idiot! Thats what you are calling authoritarian.



I live in the Peoples Republic of California. Out here, you pay very high taxes for everything. But if you call the police or fire department, you are billed for the service. When my father in law had a heart attack, the fire department sent us a $600 bill for responding.

What is it that the taxes are supposed to pay for? Apparently paying taxes gets the taxpayer nothing and services must be purchased separately. 

Government is a form of organized crime, it "provides" nothing. Government exists to enrich those in the government.


----------



## Surfer

CA has gone to hell since the criminal aliens took over. There are very few nice areas anymore. Most are disgusting now...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Surfer said:


> CA has gone to hell since the criminal aliens took over. There are very few nice areas anymore. Most are disgusting now...



The idea the Jerry Brown is a criminal fleeing from justice on Jupiter makes perfect sense, and explains a lot....


----------



## Surfer

Uncensored2008 said:


> The idea the Jerry Brown is a criminal fleeing from justice on Jupiter makes perfect sense, and explains a lot....



Yeah. He's just one of the problems. Their open borders have ruined them. You can't go anywhere without having to listen to Spanish-speaking idiots, endure their poor driving, try to get them to help you at a store etc. It's just bad. And what they've done to the schools, neighborhoods, hospitals etc is a sin.


----------



## Pogo

Surfer said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea the Jerry Brown is a criminal fleeing from justice on Jupiter makes perfect sense, and explains a lot....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. He's just one of the problems. Their open borders have ruined them. You can't go anywhere without having to listen to Spanish-speaking idiots, endure their poor driving, try to get them to help you at a store etc. It's just bad. And what they've done to the schools, neighborhoods, hospitals etc is a sin.
Click to expand...


So lemme get this straight.... 
Speaking Spanish makes you a bad driver?? 

Ya learn so much around this joint about logic.

Be glad they're not speaking Italian.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> So lemme get this straight....
> Speaking Spanish makes you a bad driver??
> 
> Ya learn so much around this joint about logic.
> 
> Be glad they're not speaking Italian.



What makes illegals bad drivers is that so many of them buy their drivers license on the black market and don't actually know how to drive.


----------



## Foxfyre

But dragging the train back on the tracks, the modern American 'liberal' thinks the Spanish speaking person must be accommodated with full functionality at other people's expense and requirement to speak English only should be illegal.

The modern American 'conservative' aka classical liberal think people have every right to speak whatever language they wish to speak. . .BUT. . employers should not have to hire someone who can't converse with their customers, nobody who can't read English should be licensed to do something that could make it dangerous not to be able to read signs or hear warnings in English, and a working understanding of English should be required for a green card or citizenship.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> But dragging the train back on the tracks, the modern American 'liberal' thinks the Spanish speaking person must be accommodated with full functionality at other people's expense and requirement to speak English only should be illegal.
> 
> The modern American 'conservative' aka classical liberal think people have every right to speak whatever language they wish to speak. . .BUT. . employers should not have to hire someone who can't converse with their customers, nobody who can't read English should be licensed to do something that could make it dangerous not to be able to read signs or hear warnings in English, and a working understanding of English should be required for a green card or citizenship.



I don't know about any of that ^^  - was just noting the logic of Surfer's post.  "Spanish = bad driver".  He's obviously never been to New Jersey.  Or Montréal.  Etc etc etc.


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> But dragging the train back on the tracks, the modern American 'liberal' thinks the Spanish speaking person must be accommodated with full functionality at other people's expense and requirement to speak English only should be illegal.
> 
> The modern American 'conservative' aka classical liberal think people have every right to speak whatever language they wish to speak. . .BUT. . employers should not have to hire someone who can't converse with their customers, nobody who can't read English should be licensed to do something that could make it dangerous not to be able to read signs or hear warnings in English, and a working understanding of English should be required for a green card or citizenship.



Maybe its just me

But where are employers forced to hire someone who cannot speak English? Isn't it up to the employer to set the requirements for the job?

Do you think people who cannot speak English should be allowed to drive on our roads?

I believe speaking English is a requirement for citizenship.....has that changed?


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But dragging the train back on the tracks, the modern American 'liberal' thinks the Spanish speaking person must be accommodated with full functionality at other people's expense and requirement to speak English only should be illegal.
> 
> The modern American 'conservative' aka classical liberal think people have every right to speak whatever language they wish to speak. . .BUT. . employers should not have to hire someone who can't converse with their customers, nobody who can't read English should be licensed to do something that could make it dangerous not to be able to read signs or hear warnings in English, and a working understanding of English should be required for a green card or citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about any of that ^^  - was just noting the logic of Surfer's post.  "Spanish = bad driver".  He's obviously never been to New Jersey.  Or Montréal.  Etc etc etc.
Click to expand...


The illogic is your interpretaton of Surfer's post.  In the referenced sentence, he listed three things that we experience with an influx of non-English speaking illegals, of which bad driving was one of them.  He wasn't equating Spanish with bad driving--you made that illogical leap, not him.


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But dragging the train back on the tracks, the modern American 'liberal' thinks the Spanish speaking person must be accommodated with full functionality at other people's expense and requirement to speak English only should be illegal.
> 
> The modern American 'conservative' aka classical liberal think people have every right to speak whatever language they wish to speak. . .BUT. . employers should not have to hire someone who can't converse with their customers, nobody who can't read English should be licensed to do something that could make it dangerous not to be able to read signs or hear warnings in English, and a working understanding of English should be required for a green card or citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe its just me
> 
> But where are employers forced to hire someone who cannot speak English? Isn't it up to the employer to set the requirements for the job?
> 
> Do you think people who cannot speak English should be allowed to drive on our roads?
> 
> I believe speaking English is a requirement for citizenship.....has that changed?
Click to expand...


In 2007,  Nancy Pelosi moved to kill an amendment that would protect employers from federal lawsuits for requiring their workers to speak English. Among the employers targeted by such lawsuits: the Salvation Army. . . .

and. . . .

In March (2007) the EEOC sued the Salvation Army because its thrift store in Framingham, Mass., required its employees to speak English on the job. The requirement was clearly posted and employees were given a year to learn the language. The EEOC claimed the store had fired two Hispanic employees for continuing to speak Spanish on the job. It said that the firings violated the law because the English-only policy was not "relevant" to job performance or safety.

Read more: Nancy Pelosi wants to FORCE US companies to hire people who cannot speak English!!!! (ethic, illegal) - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum

Both incidents were reported by John Fund in the WSJ.

In 1990, an exception was written into the immigration laws waiving the English requirement for citizenship for  long time resident older people and those with certain mental or physical disabilities.  And there are 'liberal' activists who are lobbying for the English requirement to be waived for everybody.


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But dragging the train back on the tracks, the modern American 'liberal' thinks the Spanish speaking person must be accommodated with full functionality at other people's expense and requirement to speak English only should be illegal.
> 
> The modern American 'conservative' aka classical liberal think people have every right to speak whatever language they wish to speak. . .BUT. . employers should not have to hire someone who can't converse with their customers, nobody who can't read English should be licensed to do something that could make it dangerous not to be able to read signs or hear warnings in English, and a working understanding of English should be required for a green card or citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe its just me
> 
> But where are employers forced to hire someone who cannot speak English? Isn't it up to the employer to set the requirements for the job?
> 
> Do you think people who cannot speak English should be allowed to drive on our roads?
> 
> I believe speaking English is a requirement for citizenship.....has that changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2007,  Nancy Pelosi moved to kill an amendment that would protect employers from federal lawsuits for requiring their workers to speak English. Among the employers targeted by such lawsuits: the Salvation Army. . . .
> 
> and. . . .
> 
> In March (2007) the EEOC sued the Salvation Army because its thrift store in Framingham, Mass., required its employees to speak English on the job. The requirement was clearly posted and employees were given a year to learn the language. The EEOC claimed the store had fired two Hispanic employees for continuing to speak Spanish on the job. It said that the firings violated the law because the English-only policy was not "relevant" to job performance or safety.
> 
> Read more: Nancy Pelosi wants to FORCE US companies to hire people who cannot speak English!!!! (ethic, illegal) - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum
> 
> Both incidents were reported by John Fund in the WSJ.
> 
> In 1990, an exception was written into the immigration laws waiving the English requirement for citizenship for  long time resident older people and those with certain mental or physical disabilities.  And there are 'liberal' activists who are lobbying for the English requirement to be waived for everybody.
Click to expand...


You use a message board hate post from "Nirvana-Guy" as a reference?  I still don't see any laws forcing employers to hire people who can't speak English. I even see employers who make speaking Spanish a requirement for employment.

For the most part speaking English is a requirement for citizenship


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe its just me
> 
> But where are employers forced to hire someone who cannot speak English? Isn't it up to the employer to set the requirements for the job?
> 
> Do you think people who cannot speak English should be allowed to drive on our roads?
> 
> I believe speaking English is a requirement for citizenship.....has that changed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2007,  Nancy Pelosi moved to kill an amendment that would protect employers from federal lawsuits for requiring their workers to speak English. Among the employers targeted by such lawsuits: the Salvation Army. . . .
> 
> and. . . .
> 
> In March (2007) the EEOC sued the Salvation Army because its thrift store in Framingham, Mass., required its employees to speak English on the job. The requirement was clearly posted and employees were given a year to learn the language. The EEOC claimed the store had fired two Hispanic employees for continuing to speak Spanish on the job. It said that the firings violated the law because the English-only policy was not "relevant" to job performance or safety.
> 
> Read more: Nancy Pelosi wants to FORCE US companies to hire people who cannot speak English!!!! (ethic, illegal) - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum
> 
> Both incidents were reported by John Fund in the WSJ.
> 
> In 1990, an exception was written into the immigration laws waiving the English requirement for citizenship for  long time resident older people and those with certain mental or physical disabilities.  And there are 'liberal' activists who are lobbying for the English requirement to be waived for everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You use a message board hate post from "Nirvana-Guy" as a reference?  I still don't see any laws forcing employers to hire people who can't speak English. I even see employers who make speaking Spanish a requirement for employment.
> 
> For the most part speaking English is a requirement for citizenship
Click to expand...


You asked a question.  I answered it and provided a source.  That source (and dozens of others) took the information from a WSJ article.  I went straight to the immigration rules and regs themselves to verify that the English only requirements can be waived in some cicumstances.   And if you don't know that activists are lobbying for English only requirements to be waived for everybody, you really need to get out more.


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2007,  Nancy Pelosi moved to kill an amendment that would protect employers from federal lawsuits for requiring their workers to speak English. Among the employers targeted by such lawsuits: the Salvation Army. . . .
> 
> and. . . .
> 
> In March (2007) the EEOC sued the Salvation Army because its thrift store in Framingham, Mass., required its employees to speak English on the job. The requirement was clearly posted and employees were given a year to learn the language. The EEOC claimed the store had fired two Hispanic employees for continuing to speak Spanish on the job. It said that the firings violated the law because the English-only policy was not "relevant" to job performance or safety.
> 
> Read more: Nancy Pelosi wants to FORCE US companies to hire people who cannot speak English!!!! (ethic, illegal) - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum
> 
> Both incidents were reported by John Fund in the WSJ.
> 
> In 1990, an exception was written into the immigration laws waiving the English requirement for citizenship for  long time resident older people and those with certain mental or physical disabilities.  And there are 'liberal' activists who are lobbying for the English requirement to be waived for everybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You use a message board hate post from "Nirvana-Guy" as a reference?  I still don't see any laws forcing employers to hire people who can't speak English. I even see employers who make speaking Spanish a requirement for employment.
> 
> For the most part speaking English is a requirement for citizenship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked a question.  I answered it and provided a source.  That source (and dozens of others) took the information from a WSJ article.  I went straight to the immigration rules and regs themselves to verify that the English only requirements can be waived in some cicumstances.   And if you don't know that activists are lobbying for English only requirements to be waived for everybody, you really need to get out more.
Click to expand...


I believe I said that English is still a requirement for citizenship.......infrequent waivers does not change that

I still haven't seen any laws requiring employers to hire people who can't speak English. And Nirvana Guy doesn't count


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You use a message board hate post from "Nirvana-Guy" as a reference?  I still don't see any laws forcing employers to hire people who can't speak English. I even see employers who make speaking Spanish a requirement for employment.
> 
> For the most part speaking English is a requirement for citizenship
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked a question.  I answered it and provided a source.  That source (and dozens of others) took the information from a WSJ article.  I went straight to the immigration rules and regs themselves to verify that the English only requirements can be waived in some cicumstances.   And if you don't know that activists are lobbying for English only requirements to be waived for everybody, you really need to get out more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe I said that English is still a requirement for citizenship.......infrequent waivers does not change that
> 
> I still haven't seen any laws requiring employers to hire people who can't speak English. And Nirvana Guy doesn't count
Click to expand...


Well, there's no accounting for those who will not see.  The thread topic is why do people hate liberals?  Which I have amended to be why do people hate liberalism?    One of the reasons I hate liberalism is that it prompts people who embrace it to debate like you--twisting the concepts into something that was never said so that you will have something to attack.  And when you are adequately rebutted you just move the goal posts to something else.   Not the way to make friends and influence people for sure.


----------



## numan

RKMBrown said:


> The program is funded by paying customers of the cell phone companies.   The moochers get their cell phones for nothing, and we get to pay a higher cost for our phone service to account for their cell phones.  Government mandated redistribution at it's best.


I wonder how ready you would be to pay the full cost of driving your car and maintaining the highway system, Hypocrite.

.


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked a question.  I answered it and provided a source.  That source (and dozens of others) took the information from a WSJ article.  I went straight to the immigration rules and regs themselves to verify that the English only requirements can be waived in some cicumstances.   And if you don't know that activists are lobbying for English only requirements to be waived for everybody, you really need to get out more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I said that English is still a requirement for citizenship.......infrequent waivers does not change that
> 
> I still haven't seen any laws requiring employers to hire people who can't speak English. And Nirvana Guy doesn't count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there's no accounting for those who will not see.  The thread topic is why do people hate liberals?  Which I have amended to be why do people hate liberalism?    One of the reasons I hate liberalism is that it prompts people who embrace it to debate like you--twisting the concepts into something that was never said so that you will have something to attack.  And when you are adequately rebutted you just move the goal posts to something else.   Not the way to make friends and influence people for sure.
Click to expand...


Your claim....

_American 'liberal' thinks the Spanish speaking person must be accommodated with full functionality at other people's expense and requirement to speak English only should be illegal.

The modern American 'conservative' aka classical liberal think people have every right to speak whatever language they wish to speak. . .BUT. . employers should not have to hire someone who can't converse with their customers  _

I just asked you to back it up....so far, you have failed


----------



## Foxfyre

numan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The program is funded by paying customers of the cell phone companies.   The moochers get their cell phones for nothing, and we get to pay a higher cost for our phone service to account for their cell phones.  Government mandated redistribution at it's best.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how ready you would be to pay the full cost of driving your car and maintaining the highway system, Hypocrite.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What does one have to do with the other?   RKM and I certainly have our differences and he has accused me of some pretty outrageous things, but how is he wrong in his statement here?  How does the accuracy of his statement make him a hypocrite?

That's another thing I hate about liberalism.  It promotes those who embrace it to debate via insult, insinuation, and accusation, and while some conservatives also do that, at least you usually can get a conservative to focus on a specific concept.  Liberals seem to have a real problem doing that.


----------



## numan

Uncensored2008 said:


> Government is a form of organized crime, it "provides" nothing. Government exists to enrich those in the government.


Well, at least you have learned _something_ in the decades of your misguided existence!!

*The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along paying taxes for which they get nothing in return.*
_---Gore Vidal_

*As soon as you get anywhere near the truth about anything with an American, he becomes a squid: black ink begins to fill the atmosphere as he tries to disguise what he's up to, which is usually stealing your watch.*
_---Gore Vidal_

.


----------



## numan

Surfer said:


> You can't go anywhere without having to listen to Spanish-speaking idiots, endure their poor driving, try to get them to help you at a store etc. It's just bad.


You might try learning a little Spanish.

.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> You use a message board hate post from "Nirvana-Guy" as a reference?  I still don't see any laws forcing employers to hire people who can't speak English. I even see employers who make speaking Spanish a requirement for employment.
> 
> For the most part speaking English is a requirement for citizenship



I realize that you're just a hack who posts bullshit to promote your shameful party, but did you REALLY just make such a claim?

Will the 22 million illegal aliens that Obama and Open Borders McCain want to give amnesty speak English? Hardly.

Do 3rd or 4th generation Mexican descended children in the Southwest speak English? Yo no lo creo, sparky.


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You use a message board hate post from "Nirvana-Guy" as a reference?  I still don't see any laws forcing employers to hire people who can't speak English. I even see employers who make speaking Spanish a requirement for employment.
> 
> For the most part speaking English is a requirement for citizenship
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that you're just a hack who posts bullshit to promote your shameful party, but did you REALLY just make such a claim?
> 
> Will the 22 million illegal aliens that Obama and Open Borders McCain want to give amnesty speak English? Hardly.
> 
> Do 3rd or 4th generation Mexican descended children in the Southwest speak English? Yo no lo creo, sparky.
Click to expand...


So much Bull Shit in your post....so little time

We now have 22 million illegals?
Where has anyone said the English language provision for citizenship would be waived?
Like most immigrants, almost all second generation Mexicans speak English


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> So much Bull Shit in your post....so little time
> 
> We now have 22 million illegals?



It's a low estimate, to be sure.



> Where has anyone said the English language provision for citizenship would be waived?
> Like most immigrants, almost all second generation Mexicans speak English



ROFL

Someone has never left Chicago... 

venir a California para una educacion, puta.


----------



## RKMBrown

numan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The program is funded by paying customers of the cell phone companies.   The moochers get their cell phones for nothing, and we get to pay a higher cost for our phone service to account for their cell phones.  Government mandated redistribution at it's best.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how ready you would be to pay the full cost of driving your car and maintaining the highway system, Hypocrite.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I gladly pay sales tax in my state for public roads, and I gladly pay tolls for private toll roads.  Everybody does.  How is that hypocritical?  And what does it have to do with paying for people's cell phone plans?  Heh.  Are you actually trying to make the argument that cell phone plans are public use of public networks?  heh... If you are talking about voice over IP using the public funded fios system... maybe you have something there. Internet should be free to access for ALL I suppose since we as a nation already paid for it.  But that's the internet not the cell networks.  I do see some wiggle for your argument regarding emergency phone use... but again that has nothing to do with a cell phone minutes plan.


----------



## RKMBrown

I equate airwaves as the public road.. and cell phones/minute plans as the cars we drive on roads and the gas.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> I equate airwaves as the public road.. and cell phones/minute plans as the cars we drive on roads and the gas.



The airwaves however are free though not unlimited in capacity, and therefore it is reasonable for government to regulate their use to be sure everybody has access and no single monopoly will have ability to control them.   But the use of them is quite capably handled by the private sector and no involvement via government is necessary other than in the necessary interest of national security.

The roads are a little different because they do require heavy construction to create them and serious maintenance to keep them usable and safe.  And since it is hghly impractical, even impossible, for everybody to create their own private roads to go where they need to go, or for a private company to have control over who travels the roads, people turn to the social contract to pool their resources to have public roads accessible to everybody without regard to political affiliations or socioeconomic status.

The government does not "give" us roads.  A free people empowers the government to create them for the benefit of all the people.  The 'liberals' among us see this as benevolence of government and we therefore are all beholden to government (i.e. another reason to despise liberalism.).  The 'conservatives' among us see this as social contract to accomplish a common goal to benefit us all.

Even those who don't drive benefit from the roads because the servicepeople they depend on, the goods and services they must have, and the security they need all utilize those same roads.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I equate airwaves as the public road.. and cell phones/minute plans as the cars we drive on roads and the gas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The airwaves however are free though not unlimited in capacity, and therefore it is reasonable for government to regulate their use to be sure everybody has access and no single monopoly will have ability to control them.   But the use of them is quite capably handled by the private sector and no involvement via government is necessary other than in the necessary interest of national security.
> 
> The roads are a little different because they do require heavy construction to create them and serious maintenance to keep them usable and safe.  And since it is hghly impractical, even impossible, for everybody to create their own private roads to go where they need to go, or for a private company to have control over who travels the roads, people turn to the social contract to pool their resources to have public roads accessible to everybody without regard to political affiliations or socioeconomic status.
> 
> The government does not "give" us roads.  A free people empowers the government to create them for the benefit of all the people.  The 'liberals' among us see this as benevolence of government and we therefore are all beholden to government (i.e. another reason to despise liberalism.).  The 'conservatives' among us see this as social contract to accomplish a common goal to benefit us all.
> 
> Even those who don't drive benefit from the roads because the service people they depend on, the goods and services they must have, and the security they need all utilize those same roads.
Click to expand...


Correct.  Additionally, even cell networks borrow access public utilities such as public roads along which the public and private telecommunication wires traverse.  Just pointing out that Numan and Obama are not entirely incorrect.  You are right that they appear to be disingenuous, but then both sides of this argument like to leave out the details.  But yeah he was wrong when he said hypocrite.


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a glaring fallacy to suggest that "Democrats" and "Republicans" are the same difference as "liberal" versus "conservative" or "right" versus "left".  Know what I call 'em?  "Demoplicans" or "Republicrats".  Two sides of the same coin.  To pretend that these two puppets are opposites just because one's dressed in red and the other in blue is to ignore a lot.
> 
> To paraphrase Gore Vidal, we can't have a third party in this country, because in order to have a third party you must first have *two other* parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.. but you have to admit there is a significant difference between Rand Paul and Charles Rangel.
Click to expand...


That depends on if what Rand is telling you is truly what he believes.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> That depends on if what Rand is telling you is truly what he believes.



Well, not everyone can be as consistent as John McCain, but I think Rand is pretty much on the level.

BTW, is old Open Borders John a democrat or a Republican this week? It's hard to keep up with him...


----------



## thanatos144

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That what government is suppose to provide you fucking idiot! Thats what you are calling authoritarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live in the Peoples Republic of California. Out here, you pay very high taxes for everything. But if you call the police or fire department, you are billed for the service. When my father in law had a heart attack, the fire department sent us a $600 bill for responding.
> 
> What is it that the taxes are supposed to pay for? Apparently paying taxes gets the taxpayer nothing and services must be purchased separately.
> 
> Government is a form of organized crime, it "provides" nothing. Government exists to enrich those in the government.
Click to expand...

That is something I feel should be changed in ALL states....It is time we take control of out local governments and reign them in. Those issues are ones we the citizens CAN change with the right people in office.


----------



## thanatos144

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So lemme get this straight....
> Speaking Spanish makes you a bad driver??
> 
> Ya learn so much around this joint about logic.
> 
> Be glad they're not speaking Italian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes illegals bad drivers is that so many of them buy their drivers license on the black market and don't actually know how to drive.
Click to expand...


Most of them a drunk as a skunk.....I sell more beer to Latin Immigrants...(It is against the law to ask if one is legal) then I do any other people.  

And yes I became a assistant manager and learned it is against FEDERAL law to ask a applicant in a interview what their immigration status is.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> That is something I feel should be changed in ALL states....It is time we take control of out local governments and reign them in. Those issues are ones we the citizens CAN change with the right people in office.



Maybe, but at least here, government from the local to the state level exists only to serve the public employees and their corrupt unions.

The taxes paid to the county go to ensure a 6 figure salary and retirement after 20 years for firemen. If you expect actual service, that's extra.


----------



## thanatos144

numan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The program is funded by paying customers of the cell phone companies.   The moochers get their cell phones for nothing, and we get to pay a higher cost for our phone service to account for their cell phones.  Government mandated redistribution at it's best.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how ready you would be to pay the full cost of driving your car and maintaining the highway system, Hypocrite.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

What the fuck do you think the gas taxes are suppose to do?


----------



## thanatos144

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on if what Rand is telling you is truly what he believes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not everyone can be as consistent as John McCain, but I think Rand is pretty much on the level.
> 
> BTW, is old Open Borders John a democrat or a Republican this week? It's hard to keep up with him...
Click to expand...


McCain is a old man that obviously has dementia. I have no evidence that Rand is a dishonest hack.  I am weary cause his father is. Yes I know to many drink at the Paul koolaid alter but I did my research on him in the 2008 election.....I found him lacking to say the least.


----------



## thanatos144

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is something I feel should be changed in ALL states....It is time we take control of out local governments and reign them in. Those issues are ones we the citizens CAN change with the right people in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but at least here, government from the local to the state level exists only to serve the public employees and their corrupt unions.
> 
> The taxes paid to the county go to ensure a 6 figure salary and retirement after 20 years for firemen. If you expect actual service, that's extra.
Click to expand...


California is lost.... Leave the area. Let is die and be somewhere better when it happens....When that state really starts to fall they are going to get far more Fascist then they are now trying to save it.


----------



## dblack

thanatos144 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on if what Rand is telling you is truly what he believes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not everyone can be as consistent as John McCain, but I think Rand is pretty much on the level.
> 
> BTW, is old Open Borders John a democrat or a Republican this week? It's hard to keep up with him...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> McCain is a old man that obviously has dementia. I have no evidence that Rand is a dishonest hack.  I am weary cause his father is. Yes I know to many drink at the Paul koolaid alter but I did my research on him in the 2008 election.....I found him lacking to say the least.
Click to expand...


Oh bullshit. Your hard on for Paul had nothing to do with his strengths or weaknesses. You were just pissed because his supporters refused to fall in line behind Romney. You were more honest about that back in the day.


----------



## thanatos144

dblack said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not everyone can be as consistent as John McCain, but I think Rand is pretty much on the level.
> 
> BTW, is old Open Borders John a democrat or a Republican this week? It's hard to keep up with him...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McCain is a old man that obviously has dementia. I have no evidence that Rand is a dishonest hack.  I am weary cause his father is. Yes I know to many drink at the Paul koolaid alter but I did my research on him in the 2008 election.....I found him lacking to say the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit. Your hard on for Paul had nothing to do with his strengths or weaknesses. You were just pissed because his supporters refused to fall in line behind Romney. You were more honest about that back in the day.
Click to expand...

Yes I did not want Obama elected again....But I disliked Paul long before Romney's pathetic campaign. By trhe way I do think Obama and Ron Paul are almost the same candidate....Both are frauds.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But dragging the train back on the tracks, the modern American 'liberal' thinks the Spanish speaking person must be accommodated with full functionality at other people's expense and requirement to speak English only should be illegal.
> 
> The modern American 'conservative' aka classical liberal think people have every right to speak whatever language they wish to speak. . .BUT. . employers should not have to hire someone who can't converse with their customers, nobody who can't read English should be licensed to do something that could make it dangerous not to be able to read signs or hear warnings in English, and a working understanding of English should be required for a green card or citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about any of that ^^  - was just noting the logic of Surfer's post.  "Spanish = bad driver".  He's obviously never been to New Jersey.  Or Montréal.  Etc etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The illogic is your interpretaton of Surfer's post.  In the referenced sentence, he listed three things that we experience with an influx of non-English speaking illegals, of which bad driving was one of them.  He wasn't equating Spanish with bad driving--you made that illogical leap, not him.
Click to expand...


Umm, no Foxy, I'm afraid he was.  Let's see it again:


> You can't go anywhere without having to listen to Spanish-speaking idiots, endure their poor driving, try to get them to help you at a store etc.



The subject of the sentence as it is introduced is "Spanish-speaking idiots".  What followed describes this group.  If you're a Spanish-speaking idiot, you "drive poorly".  The word _their _in "their poor driving" refers directly back to this subject: "Spanish-speaking idiots".

That doesn't mean that English-speaking idiots can't be poor drivers, but it _does _mean that if you're a Spanish-speaking idiot, you are by this definition a poor driver.  Regardless of your nationality or national status.

Don't get into a car with Julio Iglesias.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about any of that ^^  - was just noting the logic of Surfer's post.  "Spanish = bad driver".  He's obviously never been to New Jersey.  Or Montréal.  Etc etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The illogic is your interpretaton of Surfer's post.  In the referenced sentence, he listed three things that we experience with an influx of non-English speaking illegals, of which bad driving was one of them.  He wasn't equating Spanish with bad driving--you made that illogical leap, not him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm, no Foxy, I'm afraid he was.  Let's see it again:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't go anywhere without having to listen to Spanish-speaking idiots, endure their poor driving, try to get them to help you at a store etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The subject of the sentence as it is introduced is "Spanish-speaking idiots".  What followed describes this group.  If you're a Spanish-speaking idiot, you "drive poorly".  The word _their _in "their poor driving" refers directly back to this subject: "Spanish-speaking idiots".
> 
> That doesn't mean that English-speaking idiots can't be poor drivers, but it _does _mean that if you're a Spanish-speaking idiot, you are by this definition a poor driver.  Regardless of your nationality or national status.
> 
> Don't get into a car with Julio Iglesias.
Click to expand...


That is nonsense Pogo.   English IS my first language, and I'm pretty sure I'm on solid ground here.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The illogic is your interpretaton of Surfer's post.  In the referenced sentence, he listed three things that we experience with an influx of non-English speaking illegals, of which bad driving was one of them.  He wasn't equating Spanish with bad driving--you made that illogical leap, not him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no Foxy, I'm afraid he was.  Let's see it again:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't go anywhere without having to listen to Spanish-speaking idiots, endure their poor driving, try to get them to help you at a store etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The subject of the sentence as it is introduced is "Spanish-speaking idiots".  What followed describes this group.  If you're a Spanish-speaking idiot, you "drive poorly".  The word _their _in "their poor driving" refers directly back to this subject: "Spanish-speaking idiots".
> 
> That doesn't mean that English-speaking idiots can't be poor drivers, but it _does _mean that if you're a Spanish-speaking idiot, you are by this definition a poor driver.  Regardless of your nationality or national status.
> 
> Don't get into a car with Julio Iglesias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is nonsense Pogo.   English IS my first language, and I'm pretty sure I'm on solid ground here.
Click to expand...


Uh - mine too.  So feel free to demonstrate your point, as I did mine.

Both Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush speak Spanish.  Don't let either one drive.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no Foxy, I'm afraid he was.  Let's see it again:
> 
> 
> The subject of the sentence as it is introduced is "Spanish-speaking idiots".  What followed describes this group.  If you're a Spanish-speaking idiot, you "drive poorly".  The word _their _in "their poor driving" refers directly back to this subject: "Spanish-speaking idiots".
> 
> That doesn't mean that English-speaking idiots can't be poor drivers, but it _does _mean that if you're a Spanish-speaking idiot, you are by this definition a poor driver.  Regardless of your nationality or national status.
> 
> Don't get into a car with Julio Iglesias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is nonsense Pogo.   English IS my first language, and I'm pretty sure I'm on solid ground here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh - mine too.  So feel free to demonstrate your point, as I did mine.
> 
> Both Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush speak Spanish.  Don't let either one drive.
Click to expand...


And it is this kind of disconnect from reality that gives liberalism such a bad rap and probably why it always leaves more messes in its wake than anything it accomplishes.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is nonsense Pogo.   English IS my first language, and I'm pretty sure I'm on solid ground here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh - mine too.  So feel free to demonstrate your point, as I did mine.
> 
> Both Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush speak Spanish.  Don't let either one drive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it is this kind of disconnect from reality that gives liberalism such a bad rap and probably why it always leaves more messes in its wake than anything it accomplishes.
Click to expand...


I humbly accept your concession that you can't back up your claim.  But what does either speaking Spanish or driving skills have to do with "liberalism"?


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh - mine too.  So feel free to demonstrate your point, as I did mine.
> 
> Both Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush speak Spanish.  Don't let either one drive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it is this kind of disconnect from reality that gives liberalism such a bad rap and probably why it always leaves more messes in its wake than anything it accomplishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I humbly accept your concession that you can't back up your claim.  But what does either speaking Spanish or driving skills have to do with "liberalism"?
Click to expand...


Nothing, but liberalism is just foolish enough to try to connect the two when no connection was made.


----------



## BecauseIKnow

'Kind of disconnect from reality' ...

LOL, really? I hope you were describing republicans.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it is this kind of disconnect from reality that gives liberalism such a bad rap and probably why it always leaves more messes in its wake than anything it accomplishes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I humbly accept your concession that you can't back up your claim.  But what does either speaking Spanish or driving skills have to do with "liberalism"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing, but liberalism is just foolish enough to try to connect the two when no connection was made.
Click to expand...


That's not a question of "liberalism" or of politics at all.  It's a question of logic.

This inability to define terms is even worse than I imagined.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I humbly accept your concession that you can't back up your claim.  But what does either speaking Spanish or driving skills have to do with "liberalism"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, but liberalism is just foolish enough to try to connect the two when no connection was made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a question of "liberalism" or of politics at all.  It's a question of logic.
> 
> This inability to define terms is even worse than I imagined.
Click to expand...


Yeah well, in this case I'll put my reading comprehension skills up against yours any day of the week.

Example:   We just acquired some  North Carolinans, passionate liberals with  good hearts who brightens our day, and are sometimes jerks.

I don't see having a good heart as related to sometimes being a jerk.  I don't see all North Carolinans as as having  good hearts or brightening my day.   I don't see the three traits attributed to  in that sentence as being necessarily related in any way.

But if you read my sentence in the same way you interpreted Surfer's, you do.   And THAT is what makes your leap to judgment illogical and, I might add, mean spirited.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, but liberalism is just foolish enough to try to connect the two when no connection was made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a question of "liberalism" or of politics at all.  It's a question of logic.
> 
> This inability to define terms is even worse than I imagined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well, in this case I'll put my reading comprehension skills up against yours any day of the week.
> 
> Example:   We just acquired some  North Carolinans, passionate liberals with  good hearts who brightens our day, and are sometimes jerks.
> 
> I don't see having a good heart as related to sometimes being a jerk.  I don't see all North Carolinans as as having  good hearts or brightening my day.   I don't see the three traits attributed to  in that sentence as being necessarily related in any way.
> 
> But if you read my sentence in the same way you interpreted Surfer's, you do.   And THAT is what makes your leap to judgment illogical and, I might add, mean spirited.
Click to expand...


Fox you said... "liberalism is just foolish enough to try to connect the two when no connection was made."

From that statement I discern that you, being a conservative, tried to connect two disparate things, one being liberalism the other being a decidedly human trait.  Would you not say that "conservatism is also just foolish enough to try to connect two unrelated things when no connection was made?"

It seems the ability to make mean spirited assumptions is not just a trait of liberals.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a question of "liberalism" or of politics at all.  It's a question of logic.
> 
> This inability to define terms is even worse than I imagined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well, in this case I'll put my reading comprehension skills up against yours any day of the week.
> 
> Example:   We just acquired some  North Carolinans, passionate liberals with  good hearts who brightens our day, and are sometimes jerks.
> 
> I don't see having a good heart as related to sometimes being a jerk.  I don't see all North Carolinans as as having  good hearts or brightening my day.   I don't see the three traits attributed to  in that sentence as being necessarily related in any way.
> 
> But if you read my sentence in the same way you interpreted Surfer's, you do.   And THAT is what makes your leap to judgment illogical and, I might add, mean spirited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox you said... "liberalism is just foolish enough to try to connect the two when no connection was made."
> 
> From that statement I discern that you, being a conservative, tried to connect two disparate things, one being liberalism the other being a decidedly human trait.  Would you not say that "conservatism is also just foolish enough to try to connect two unrelated things when no connection was made?"
> 
> It seems the ability to make mean spirited assumptions is not just a trait of liberals.
Click to expand...


It is not mean spirited to answer the question posted in the OP.  Modern Ameridan liberalism is frequently illogical, it is frequently mean spirited, and it is incapable of connecting itself to the unintended negative consequences it creates.  And that is why those of us who know that object to it and push against it.  That is what this thread is about.

But it does not equate that I see Pogo or many other liberals of whom I am very fond in a negative light.   Which is why I have repeatedly objected to the wording of the OP.   We should be discussing liberalism and not liberals.   Those are two different things.

I can despise a dish a cook prepares without jumping to the illogical assumption that the cook is a bad person or even a bad cook.

.


----------



## thanatos144

Lets cut the bullshit shall we????? No we cant all just get along because Liberals IE progressives and Conservatives have Diametrically differing idea on How the country should be governed....It is between Fascist socialism and Liberty.  There is no common ground here.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> Lets cut the bullshit shall we????? No we cant all just get along because Liberals IE progressives and Conservatives have Diametrically differing idea on How the country should be governed....It is between Fascist socialism and Liberty.  There is no common ground here.



Yet the irony is that you spend as much or more time attacking the defenders of liberty, as you do in refuting the progressives. 

Standard Disclaimer: "Progressives," can't we just call them "Communists," in a "truth in advertising" move?


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets cut the bullshit shall we????? No we cant all just get along because Liberals IE progressives and Conservatives have Diametrically differing idea on How the country should be governed....It is between Fascist socialism and Liberty.  There is no common ground here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the irony is that you spend as much or more time attacking the defenders of liberty, as you do in refuting the progressives.
> 
> Standard Disclaimer: "Progressives," can't we just call them "Communists," in a "truth in advertising" move?
Click to expand...


If by communists you mean classical communists maybe... but unless you are talking about Cuban Communists, most communists these days are staunch capitalists who have thrown out marxist redistribution as a failed economic plan.


----------



## thanatos144

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets cut the bullshit shall we????? No we cant all just get along because Liberals IE progressives and Conservatives have Diametrically differing idea on How the country should be governed....It is between Fascist socialism and Liberty.  There is no common ground here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the irony is that you spend as much or more time attacking the defenders of liberty, as you do in refuting the progressives.
> 
> Standard Disclaimer: "Progressives," can't we just call them "Communists," in a "truth in advertising" move?
Click to expand...


Oh do you mean my statements that Libertarians are nothing more then democrats that hate taxes? I dont see how that disproves my  post?


----------



## rightwinger

thanatos144 said:


> Lets cut the bullshit shall we????? No we cant all just get along because Liberals IE progressives and Conservatives have Diametrically differing idea on How the country should be governed....It is between Fascist socialism and Liberty.  There is no common ground here.



Which side is for Liberty and which side is the Fascist socialists?


----------



## thanatos144

rightwinger said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets cut the bullshit shall we????? No we cant all just get along because Liberals IE progressives and Conservatives have Diametrically differing idea on How the country should be governed....It is between Fascist socialism and Liberty.  There is no common ground here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which side is for Liberty and which side is the Fascist socialists?
Click to expand...


The fact that you have to ask this question tells us all we need to know.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> If by communists you mean classical communists maybe... but unless you are talking about Cuban Communists, most communists these days are staunch capitalists who have thrown out marxist redistribution as a failed economic plan.



The American left continues to seek state control over the means of production and distribution. That the modern left has adopted the methodology of Mussolini as superior to that of Marx, does not alter the fact that the push is to place the state as the final arbiter of winners and losers in the economy. 

We see that those who prosper in our society do so more by pull, than by production.


----------



## rightwinger

thanatos144 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets cut the bullshit shall we????? No we cant all just get along because Liberals IE progressives and Conservatives have Diametrically differing idea on How the country should be governed....It is between Fascist socialism and Liberty.  There is no common ground here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which side is for Liberty and which side is the Fascist socialists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you have to ask this question tells us all we need to know.
Click to expand...


Well.....since Liberals founded this country in the name of Liberty

I guess that makes you the Fascists


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets cut the bullshit shall we????? No we cant all just get along because Liberals IE progressives and Conservatives have Diametrically differing idea on How the country should be governed....It is between Fascist socialism and Liberty.  There is no common ground here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which side is for Liberty and which side is the Fascist socialists?
Click to expand...


Neither of the two major American political parties currently stand for liberty.


----------



## thanatos144

rightwinger said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which side is for Liberty and which side is the Fascist socialists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you have to ask this question tells us all we need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well.....since Liberals founded this country in the name of Liberty
> 
> I guess that makes you the Fascists
Click to expand...


You think you are like the founders? 

the founders were not Socialistic fascists.


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets cut the bullshit shall we????? No we cant all just get along because Liberals IE progressives and Conservatives have Diametrically differing idea on How the country should be governed....It is between Fascist socialism and Liberty.  There is no common ground here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which side is for Liberty and which side is the Fascist socialists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither political party is for liberty.
Click to expand...


Oh your one of those huh???? A fence sitter who thinks they are superior cause you cant make a decision?


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which side is for Liberty and which side is the Fascist socialists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you have to ask this question tells us all we need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well.....since Liberals founded this country in the name of Liberty
> 
> I guess that makes you the Fascists
Click to expand...


Modern liberals are diametrically opposed to classical liberal views.


----------



## RKMBrown

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which side is for Liberty and which side is the Fascist socialists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither political party is for liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh your one of those huh???? A fence sitter who thinks they are superior cause you cant make a decision?
Click to expand...


I have never been a fence sitter and I have no problems making decisions.  My superiority over you is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you have to ask this question tells us all we need to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well.....since Liberals founded this country in the name of Liberty
> 
> I guess that makes you the Fascists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Modern liberals are diametrically opposed to classical liberal views.
Click to expand...


At the founding of our nation, Conservatives sided with the King

Liberals used to tar and feather them......Oh for the good ole days


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither political party is for liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh your one of those huh???? A fence sitter who thinks they are superior cause you cant make a decision?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never been a fence sitter and I have no problems making decisions.  My superiority over you is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.
Click to expand...


You think you made a decision by saying you all suck? LOL I love people like you cause you just might be worse then Ideologue morons. How you ask? Because you dont get to act like you are entitled yet never do a fucking thing. And bitching cause your douche was beat by the other douche in the primary isnt doing something other then looking like a sore loser. I am actually working with the party from my local area actually trying to make a difference not sitting there acting better then others and yet doing nothing but hoping something fails so you can say TOLD YA!


----------



## thanatos144

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well.....since Liberals founded this country in the name of Liberty
> 
> I guess that makes you the Fascists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern liberals are diametrically opposed to classical liberal views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the founding of our nation, Conservatives sided with the King
> 
> Liberals used to tar and feather them......Oh for the good ole days
Click to expand...


Your so stupid is is amazing.....If you are trying to preserve the founding of this nation you would be a conservative not a liberal you moron. We are not trying to liberate anyone from the constitution you are.


----------



## rightwinger

thanatos144 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern liberals are diametrically opposed to classical liberal views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the founding of our nation, Conservatives sided with the King
> 
> Liberals used to tar and feather them......Oh for the good ole days
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your so stupid is is amazing.....If you are trying to preserve the founding of this nation you would be a conservative not a liberal you moron. We are not trying to liberate anyone from the constitution you are.
Click to expand...


You have a childlike view of the Constitution and your Constitutional views would result in anarchy

Our nation was founded by liberals and liberals are resposible for every significant improvement since


----------



## thanatos144

rightwinger said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the founding of our nation, Conservatives sided with the King
> 
> Liberals used to tar and feather them......Oh for the good ole days
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your so stupid is is amazing.....If you are trying to preserve the founding of this nation you would be a conservative not a liberal you moron. We are not trying to liberate anyone from the constitution you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a childlike view of the Constitution and your Constitutional views would result in anarchy
> 
> Our nation was founded by liberals and liberals are resposible for every significant improvement since
Click to expand...

Actually not dummy. The constitution is the law so supporting the law does not make me a anarchist.... Those are libertarians who dislike any and all laws.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets cut the bullshit shall we????? No we cant all just get along because Liberals IE progressives and Conservatives have Diametrically differing idea on How the country should be governed....It is between Fascist socialism and Liberty.  There is no common ground here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which side is for Liberty and which side is the Fascist socialists?
Click to expand...







As it currently stands, the Democratic party is taking the US towards socialism at 100 mph and the Republican party at 75 mph.  What is astounding to me is we have clear evidence of how socialism fails with the breakup of the Soviet Union and now they are freer than we are.  They also pay far less in taxes than we do.


----------



## rightwinger

thanatos144 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your so stupid is is amazing.....If you are trying to preserve the founding of this nation you would be a conservative not a liberal you moron. We are not trying to liberate anyone from the constitution you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a childlike view of the Constitution and your Constitutional views would result in anarchy
> 
> Our nation was founded by liberals and liberals are resposible for every significant improvement since
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually not dummy. The constitution is the law so supporting the law does not make me a anarchist.... Those are libertarians who dislike any and all laws.
Click to expand...


I did not say anarchist, I said anarchy

A modern government would be unable to function within the limited confines of the Constitution. We have 200 years of laws and judicial constitutional precidence that allow us to function as a modern society


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which side is for Liberty and which side is the Fascist socialists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you have to ask this question tells us all we need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well.....since Liberals founded this country in the name of Liberty
> 
> I guess that makes you the Fascists
Click to expand...






RELIGIOUS liberals, social and monetary conservatives didn't you mean to say?


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets cut the bullshit shall we????? No we cant all just get along because Liberals IE progressives and Conservatives have Diametrically differing idea on How the country should be governed....It is between Fascist socialism and Liberty.  There is no common ground here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which side is for Liberty and which side is the Fascist socialists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As it currently stands, the Democratic party is taking the US towards socialism at 100 mph and the Republican party at 75 mph.  What is astounding to me is we have clear evidence of how socialism fails with the breakup of the Soviet Union and now they are freer than we are.  They also pay far less in taxes than we do.
Click to expand...


Another moron thinking in absolutes

No society is either 100% capitalist or 100% socialist.

All provide a careful balance of the two


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a childlike view of the Constitution and your Constitutional views would result in anarchy
> 
> Our nation was founded by liberals and liberals are resposible for every significant improvement since
> 
> 
> 
> Actually not dummy. The constitution is the law so supporting the law does not make me a anarchist.... Those are libertarians who dislike any and all laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say anarchist, I said anarchy
> 
> A modern government would be unable to function within the limited confines of the Constitution. We have 200 years of laws and judicial constitutional precidence that allow us to function as a modern society
Click to expand...







Absolutely wrong.  The Constitution has been perverted by "progressives" on one side and Corporate interests on the other, in an effort to gain more power and wealth for the elite at the expense of the middle class.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which side is for Liberty and which side is the Fascist socialists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As it currently stands, the Democratic party is taking the US towards socialism at 100 mph and the Republican party at 75 mph.  What is astounding to me is we have clear evidence of how socialism fails with the breakup of the Soviet Union and now they are freer than we are.  They also pay far less in taxes than we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another moron thinking in absolutes
> 
> No society is either 100% capitalist or 100% socialist.
> 
> All provide a careful balance of the two
Click to expand...






Wrong again buckwheat, socialist countries fail because they can NEVER strike a happy balance between the two sides of the economic pie.  For a country to be run well it must strike a balance between corporate interests and the people.  That's why it is GOOD to have a mix of liberal, socialist, and conservative, in government. 

The problem arises when one side gets too much power.  Then the balance tilts and eventually chaos ensues.  That is the nature of the life cycle of governments as a whole.

Go read a book sometime.  Your simplistic view of the world is great for a grade schooler but for a adult it is problematic.


----------



## thanatos144

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you have to ask this question tells us all we need to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well.....since Liberals founded this country in the name of Liberty
> 
> I guess that makes you the Fascists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RELIGIOUS liberals, social and monetary conservatives didn't you mean to say?
Click to expand...

Whats wrong with religion again?


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well.....since Liberals founded this country in the name of Liberty
> 
> I guess that makes you the Fascists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern liberals are diametrically opposed to classical liberal views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the founding of our nation, Conservatives sided with the King
> 
> Liberals used to tar and feather them......Oh for the good ole days
Click to expand...


I'm a constitutional conservative, I'm not siding with King Obuma. I think we should bring back tar and feathering as a means to rid ourselves of government tyrants. .


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you have to ask this question tells us all we need to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well.....since Liberals founded this country in the name of Liberty
> 
> I guess that makes you the Fascists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RELIGIOUS liberals, social and monetary conservatives didn't you mean to say?
Click to expand...


Nope....try again


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern liberals are diametrically opposed to classical liberal views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the founding of our nation, Conservatives sided with the King
> 
> Liberals used to tar and feather them......Oh for the good ole days
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a constitutional conservative, I'm not siding with King Obuma. I think we should bring back tar and feathering as a means to rid ourselves of government tyrants. .
Click to expand...


You have no perception of our Constitution outside of the second amendment

Even there you only understand half of it


----------



## thanatos144

Why is always the same retarded Liberal that posts in these threads?????


----------



## RKMBrown

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh your one of those huh???? A fence sitter who thinks they are superior cause you cant make a decision?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never been a fence sitter and I have no problems making decisions.  My superiority over you is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think you made a decision by saying you all suck? LOL I love people like you cause you just might be worse then Ideologue morons. How you ask? Because you dont get to act like you are entitled yet never do a fucking thing. And bitching cause your douche was beat by the other douche in the primary isnt doing something other then looking like a sore loser. I am actually working with the party from my local area actually trying to make a difference not sitting there acting better then others and yet doing nothing but hoping something fails so you can say TOLD YA!
Click to expand...


>>> You think you made a decision by saying you all suck?

I did not say "you all suck." You are an ignorant prick.

>> I am actually working with the party from my local area 

Good for you.  I spent a couple hours working with one of the 2016 presidential hopefuls last week trying to change his mind on some of his socialist views.  I think I made some progress, we'll see.


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the founding of our nation, Conservatives sided with the King
> 
> Liberals used to tar and feather them......Oh for the good ole days
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a constitutional conservative, I'm not siding with King Obuma. I think we should bring back tar and feathering as a means to rid ourselves of government tyrants. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no perception of our Constitution outside of the second amendment
> 
> Even there you only understand half of it
Click to expand...


blah blah blah


----------



## rightwinger




----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> Oh do you mean my statements that Libertarians are nothing more then democrats that hate taxes? I dont see how that disproves my  post?



I wasn't trying to "refute" your post; I was just pointing out the irony.

You say you oppose the encroachment of individual freedom by the state and the central authoritarians of the democratic party, yet you routinely side with those same authoritarians in your war against the Libertarians.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Which side is for Liberty and which side is the Fascist socialists?



One thing is for sure, you central authoritarians aren't real keen on the whole "liberty" thingy.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> I did not say anarchist, I said anarchy
> 
> A modern government would be unable to function within the limited confines of the Constitution. We have 200 years of laws and judicial constitutional precidence that allow us to function as a modern society



Is that why you leftists violate the Constitution as a matter of standard procedure? And here I was thinking it was because you are a bunch of corrupt fuckwads....


----------



## thanatos144

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh do you mean my statements that Libertarians are nothing more then democrats that hate taxes? I dont see how that disproves my  post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to "refute" your post; I was just pointing out the irony.
> 
> You say you oppose the encroachment of individual freedom by the state and the central authoritarians of the democratic party, yet you routinely side with those same authoritarians in your war against the Libertarians.
Click to expand...


No I dont. What I agree with is the people through representation have the power to shape government. Laws and regulations are not inherently evil. Take safe food. No one wants unsafe food except hippie progressives( I know it is very ironic LOL) so we have regulations.A libertarian mind set is to have NO regulations on anything. Thats just stupid. At a certain point you need to think about the community not just yourself.  Nothing wrong with self interest as long as it isn't at the harm of the rest. Now they will say they agree with my statement yet at the same time scream about regulating drugs. I have seen the harm drugs do to those NOT consuming them.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


>



Of course, it's just as likely that you're not....


----------



## dblack

rightwinger said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which side is for Liberty and which side is the Fascist socialists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you have to ask this question tells us all we need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well.....since Liberals founded this country in the name of Liberty
> 
> I guess that makes you the Fascists
Click to expand...


Hmmm... I'm generally one for pointing out that there is some overlap between the founders' version of liberalism and the modern variety. But not much when it comes to liberty. Liberalism in the hands of Democrats treats liberty like the red-headed step child of liberalism. Something to whip out when someone calls you fascists, but otherwise kept out of sight, and out of mind.


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which side is for Liberty and which side is the Fascist socialists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is for sure, you central authoritarians aren't real keen on the whole "liberty" thingy.
Click to expand...


----------



## numan

Foxfyre said:


> That is nonsense Pogo.   English IS my first language, and I'm pretty sure I'm on solid ground here.


I'm waiting for you to prove it, illiterate.

.


----------



## thanatos144

rightwinger said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which side is for Liberty and which side is the Fascist socialists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is for sure, you central authoritarians aren't real keen on the whole "liberty" thingy.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Damn if that isnt a check list for FDR and Obama


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> No I dont. What I agree with is the people through representation have the power to shape government. Laws and regulations are not inherently evil. Take safe food. No one wants unsafe food except hippie progressives( I know it is very ironic LOL) so we have regulations.A libertarian mind set is to have NO regulations on anything. Thats just stupid. At a certain point you need to think about the community not just yourself.  Nothing wrong with self interest as long as it isn't at the harm of the rest. Now they will say they agree with my statement yet at the same time scream about regulating drugs. I have seen the harm drugs do to those NOT consuming them.



Yeah, utter nonsense.

Have you ever heard of Underwriters Laboratories? Sure, everyone knows who U/L is - and no one, NO ONE, will buy an electrical product that is not U/L certified.

What you probably DIDN'T know is that U/L is a 100% private organization. There is no law that requires a U/L cert - just consumer demand.

NOW, would you like to compare the track record of U/L to a government agency, say the FDA, on protecting consumers? I'll bet you a Fen-Phen that you don't.....


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


>



So basically, Obama?


----------



## numan

RKMBrown said:


> I'm a constitutional conservative, I'm not siding with King Obuma. I think we should bring back tar and feathering as a means to rid ourselves of government tyrants. .


For entertainment while you are boiling up missionaries in soup pots in the Lone Star State?

Or in between blowing up unregulated chemical factories next to schools and housing estates?

.


----------



## rightwinger




----------



## thanatos144

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I dont. What I agree with is the people through representation have the power to shape government. Laws and regulations are not inherently evil. Take safe food. No one wants unsafe food except hippie progressives( I know it is very ironic LOL) so we have regulations.A libertarian mind set is to have NO regulations on anything. Thats just stupid. At a certain point you need to think about the community not just yourself.  Nothing wrong with self interest as long as it isn't at the harm of the rest. Now they will say they agree with my statement yet at the same time scream about regulating drugs. I have seen the harm drugs do to those NOT consuming them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, utter nonsense.
> 
> Have you ever heard of Underwriters Laboratories? Sure, everyone knows who U/L is - and no one, NO ONE, will buy an electrical product that is not U/L certified.
> 
> What you probably DIDN'T know is that U/L is a 100% private organization. There is no law that requires a U/L cert - just consumer demand.
> 
> NOW, would you like to compare the track record of U/L to a government agency, say the FDA, on protecting consumers? I'll bet you a Fen-Phen that you don't.....
Click to expand...


Your pint is what???? the business will always regulate itself for the betterment of society? We already know they wont. Why? Cause business is ran by people and not all people are good.


----------



## numan

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, it's just as likely that you're not....
Click to expand...

I think his point is that all these things were either enacted by lefties, or are presently advocated by Commie pinko dupes.

I think they at least constitute "check!!" to conservatives, and "checkmate!!" to you Nazoid Neo-Cons.

.


----------



## rightwinger




----------



## RKMBrown

numan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a constitutional conservative, I'm not siding with King Obuma. I think we should bring back tar and feathering as a means to rid ourselves of government tyrants. .
> 
> 
> 
> For entertainment while you are boiling up missionaries in soup pots in the Lone Star State?
> 
> Or in between blowing up unregulated chemical factories next to schools and housing estates?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


>> For entertainment while you are boiling up missionaries in soup pots in the Lone Star State?

No, missionaries are typically not government tyrants.  Surprising that you think they are though.

>> Or in between blowing up unregulated chemical factories next to schools and housing estates?

What does taring and feathering government tyrants have to do with what happened in West?  Are you saying you know of some tie between the two?  Should I alert the investigators that you have particular evidence for what happened there?


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> Your pint is what???? the business will always regulate itself for the betterment of society? We already know they wont. Why? Cause business is ran by people and not all people are good.



Consumers demand a level of assurance of quality. Government is neither needed, nor do they bring anything to the party. When electrical appliances started burning down houses in the the early 1900's - the PEOPLE demanded that manufacturers address their concerns. Manufacturers did - by creating U/L.

Ditto ISO, the IEEE and a thousand other private certification venues.


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> I think his point is that all these things were either enacted by lefties, or are presently advocated by Commie pinko dupes.
> 
> I think they at least constitute "check!!" to conservatives, and "checkmate!!" to you Nazoid Neo-Cons.
> 
> .



Actually, only a few of them were - but the left isn't known for integrity - so will claim credit for much that they opposed or had nothing to do with.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


>



Gee, couldn't you Communists come up with at least ONE thing that was true?




 You Might Be A Liberal Leftist If ...
If you think "progressive" means progress.

If you think that Blame Bush is a valid argument.

If you believe FDR's New Deal ended the Great Depression.

If you think that bowing by an American President is sign of respect not weakness.

If you think an American citizen should be sent to prison for not purchasing health insurance.

If you think Sarah Palin is more of a threat to 'women's rights' than is Sharia Law.

If You have the New York Times app on your iPad or iPhone.

If you think Alan Greyson is the ideal Democrat congressman.

If you repeatedly apologize on behalf of others but never on behalf of yourself.

If you say you support the troops but really hope they lose the war.

If you think Al Gore actually deserved the Nobel Prize.

If you cannot imagine an Hispanic voting Republican.

If you think English as a Second Language should be taught to all US school children.

If you think partial birth abortion is good for America!

If you believed Speaker Pelosi when she said unemployment creates jobs, jobs, jobs.

If you believe that Nancy Pelosi actually drained the swamp.

If you believe in Santa Claus but NOT tax cuts.

If you think that Barack Obama is actually a leader and not a reader.

If you shout RACIST at anyone winning a debate with a Liberal.

If you lecture on the dangers of Global Warming whilst flying your own private jet.

If your profile states you are Jewish, but your avatar is pro-Hamas.

If you think treating all people equally, regardless of race, is racist.

If you believe Fundamentalist Christians are more dangerous than Islamist Terrorists.

If you condone Illegal Immigration because criminals vote for Democrats.

If you think you can tax a nation into prosperity.

If you think up is down, black is white, and Totalitarianism is freedom.

If you are so open-minded that your brain has fallen out of your numb skull.

If you forget to say the Victory in Iraq was inherited by Obama from George W. Bush.

If you think you are entitled to what other people earn.

If you think Barack Obama & Jeremiah Wright are practicing Christians but Glenn Beck is not a Christian.


----------



## Immanuel

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which side is for Liberty and which side is the Fascist socialists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As it currently stands, the Democratic party is taking the US towards socialism at 100 mph and the Republican party at 75 mph.  What is astounding to me is we have clear evidence of how socialism fails with the breakup of the Soviet Union and now they are freer than we are.  They also pay far less in taxes than we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another moron thinking in absolutes
> 
> No society is either 100% capitalist or 100% socialist.
> 
> All provide a careful balance of the two
Click to expand...


Um, no, ours is not currently providing a "careful balance" between the two.  Dems and Reps are sweeping us toward 100% socialism.  I'm sure they will eventually put on the brakes, but not before they either have complete power over us or they finally realize total collapse is imminent.

Immie


----------



## rightwinger

Immanuel said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As it currently stands, the Democratic party is taking the US towards socialism at 100 mph and the Republican party at 75 mph.  What is astounding to me is we have clear evidence of how socialism fails with the breakup of the Soviet Union and now they are freer than we are.  They also pay far less in taxes than we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another moron thinking in absolutes
> 
> No society is either 100% capitalist or 100% socialist.
> 
> All provide a careful balance of the two
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no, ours is not currently providing a "careful balance" between the two.  Dems and Reps are sweeping us toward 100% socialism.  I'm sure they will eventually put on the brakes, but not before they either have complete power over us or they finally realize total collapse is imminent.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Immie, I have always respected you

But do you realize what a complete moron you sound like when you post shit like that?  Do you understand what 100% Socialism means?


----------



## thanatos144

Immanuel said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As it currently stands, the Democratic party is taking the US towards socialism at 100 mph and the Republican party at 75 mph.  What is astounding to me is we have clear evidence of how socialism fails with the breakup of the Soviet Union and now they are freer than we are.  They also pay far less in taxes than we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another moron thinking in absolutes
> 
> No society is either 100% capitalist or 100% socialist.
> 
> All provide a careful balance of the two
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no, ours is not currently providing a "careful balance" between the two.  Dems and Reps are sweeping us toward 100% socialism.  I'm sure they will eventually put on the brakes, but not before they either have complete power over us or they finally realize total collapse is imminent.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

This post is full of shit.....Any republican pushing socialism isn't a republican but a coward. Any libertarian who says they are not liberal is lying.


----------



## Immanuel

rightwinger said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another moron thinking in absolutes
> 
> No society is either 100% capitalist or 100% socialist.
> 
> All provide a careful balance of the two
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, ours is not currently providing a "careful balance" between the two.  Dems and Reps are sweeping us toward 100% socialism.  I'm sure they will eventually put on the brakes, but not before they either have complete power over us or they finally realize total collapse is imminent.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immie, I have always respected you
> 
> But do you realize what a complete moron you sound like when you post shit like that?  Do you understand what 100% Socialism means?
Click to expand...


Certainly I do... but maybe you are drunk today?  Did I say we would ever get to 100% Socialism?  Nope.  I'm sure this nation will collapse long before that happens.

Did I even say where we are right now?  Nope.

However, the direction we are going is in fact towards a much more Socialistic nation and it will end up in collapsing this nation.  

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

thanatos144 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another moron thinking in absolutes
> 
> No society is either 100% capitalist or 100% socialist.
> 
> All provide a careful balance of the two
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, ours is not currently providing a "careful balance" between the two.  Dems and Reps are sweeping us toward 100% socialism.  I'm sure they will eventually put on the brakes, but not before they either have complete power over us or they finally realize total collapse is imminent.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This post is full of shit.....Any republican pushing socialism isn't a republican but a coward. Any libertarian who says they are not liberal is lying.
Click to expand...


There are not any Republicans then.  They have just absconded with the name.  They are at best a bunch of damned Neo-cons who are as bad if not worse than progressives.  They are just as damned authoritarian as their damned progressives counterparts.

Immie


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Immie, I have always respected you
> 
> But do you realize what a complete moron you sound like when you post shit like that?  Do you understand what 100% Socialism means?




Rightwinger, I have never respected you

But do you realize what a complete moron you sound like in every post you put on the board?


I'm just sayin....


----------



## rightwinger

Immanuel said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, ours is not currently providing a "careful balance" between the two.  Dems and Reps are sweeping us toward 100% socialism.  I'm sure they will eventually put on the brakes, but not before they either have complete power over us or they finally realize total collapse is imminent.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, I have always respected you
> 
> But do you realize what a complete moron you sound like when you post shit like that?  Do you understand what 100% Socialism means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly I do... but maybe you are drunk today?  Did I say we would ever get to 100% Socialism?  Nope.  I'm sure this nation will collapse long before that happens.
> 
> Did I even say where we are right now?  Nope.
> 
> However, the direction we are going is in fact towards a much more Socialistic nation and it will end up in collapsing this nation.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


In fact, we are not anywhere close to 100% Socialism

We still enjoy some of the lowest tax rates in generations as well as deregulation implemented by Republicans which helped lead to a banking crisis. 

Republicans define socialism as any time government lifts a finger to help the people. Something they whine about as "redistributing wealth"


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, I have always respected you
> 
> But do you realize what a complete moron you sound like when you post shit like that?  Do you understand what 100% Socialism means?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwinger, I have never respected you
> 
> But do you realize what a complete moron you sound like in every post you put on the board?
> 
> 
> I'm just sayin....
Click to expand...


Oh.......Thank you God.

Thank you God. Thank you God.Thank you God.Thank you God.Thank you God.Thank you God.Thank you God.Thank you God.Thank you God.Thank you God.


----------



## Surfer

rightwinger said:


> Republicans define socialism as any time government lifts a finger to help the people. Something they whine about as "redistributing wealth"



What a crock. Repubs don't want to pay for liberals' baby-killing, welfare, birth control, housing, medical bills, education, incarceration and godless behavior. Most Repubs are fed up with footing the bill for loser liberals. Most liberals have no concept of self-sufficiency, self-reliance or self-respect.


----------



## koshergrl

There's a disconnect between the Republicans in office...and the Republicans who put them there.

Our politicians no longer represent our party.


----------



## Surfer

Most Republicans are fed up with their choices of candidates. They don't want anyone who supports baby-killing, sodomy, criminal alien immigration, raising taxes, Muslimes etc..


----------



## Dragonlady

Surfer said:


> What a crock. Repubs don't want to pay for liberals' baby-killing, welfare, birth control, housing, medical bills, education, incarceration and godless behavior. Most Repubs are fed up with footing the bill for loser liberals. Most liberals have no concept of self-sufficiency, self-reliance or self-respect.



Republicans just want all of these things to disappear, but have no clue how to accomplish that other than banning them.  And that's the problem:  the party of individual rights and self-sufficiency, is busy telling people how to live their lives.  No abortions, no birth control, no medical bills, or, my personal favourite "godless behaviour".

I notice especially that women's health care is high on the list of things they don't want to fund.  Women having sex always drives right-wingers to distraction.


----------



## thanatos144

Immanuel said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, ours is not currently providing a "careful balance" between the two.  Dems and Reps are sweeping us toward 100% socialism.  I'm sure they will eventually put on the brakes, but not before they either have complete power over us or they finally realize total collapse is imminent.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> This post is full of shit.....Any republican pushing socialism isn't a republican but a coward. Any libertarian who says they are not liberal is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are not any Republicans then.  They have just absconded with the name.  They are at best a bunch of damned Neo-cons who are as bad if not worse than progressives.  They are just as damned authoritarian as their damned progressives counterparts.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

What a shame you are just another young fool who thinks there is no differences in parties. This is what liberal indoctrination creates.


----------



## thanatos144

Dragonlady said:


> Surfer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a crock. Repubs don't want to pay for liberals' baby-killing, welfare, birth control, housing, medical bills, education, incarceration and godless behavior. Most Repubs are fed up with footing the bill for loser liberals. Most liberals have no concept of self-sufficiency, self-reliance or self-respect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans just want all of these things to disappear, but have no clue how to accomplish that other than banning them.  And that's the problem:  the party of individual rights and self-sufficiency, is busy telling people how to live their lives.  No abortions, no birth control, no medical bills, or, my personal favourite "godless behaviour".
> 
> I notice especially that women's health care is high on the list of things they don't want to fund.  Women having sex always drives right-wingers to distraction.
Click to expand...


No demanding we pay for your slutish behavior drives us nuts.... Get a fucking job and pay for the pill yourself or cross your fucking legs.


----------



## JimBowie1958

koshergrl said:


> There's a disconnect between the Republicans in office...and the Republicans who put them there.
> 
> Our politicians no longer represent our party.



And I don't see anyone fixing that problem either.

Which is why I don't plan to ever vote Republican again, unless they toss out the RINOS, and they can start wit McSame.


----------



## Bfgrn

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets cut the bullshit shall we????? No we cant all just get along because Liberals IE progressives and Conservatives have Diametrically differing idea on How the country should be governed....It is between Fascist socialism and Liberty.  There is no common ground here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which side is for Liberty and which side is the Fascist socialists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As it currently stands, the Democratic party is taking the US towards socialism at 100 mph and the Republican party at 75 mph.  What is astounding to me is we have clear evidence of how socialism fails with the breakup of the Soviet Union and now they are freer than we are.  They also pay far less in taxes than we do.
Click to expand...


 The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering. Later that year, he purged 259,000 from the party membership and therefore purged them from voting.

Russia is and always has been a deeply conservative country.

Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.

Similarly, military spending is high in comparison  and growing  medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.


----------



## American_Jihad

Bfgrn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which side is for Liberty and which side is the Fascist socialists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As it currently stands, the Democratic party is taking the US towards socialism at 100 mph and the Republican party at 75 mph.  What is astounding to me is we have clear evidence of how socialism fails with the breakup of the Soviet Union and now they are freer than we are.  They also pay far less in taxes than we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering. Later that year, he purged 259,000 from the party membership and therefore purged them from voting.
> 
> Russia is and always has been a deeply conservative country.
> 
> Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.
> 
> Similarly, military spending is high in comparison  and growing  medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.
Click to expand...


Lenin's New Economic Policy: What It Was and How It Changed the Soviet Union - Student Pulse


----------



## American_Jihad

*25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals*

John Hawkins | May 11, 2013 

Is every liberal an immoral, nasty tempered, habitual liar who accuses people of racism for fun and trashes his own country because he thinks it makes him look sophisticated? Of course, not! On the other hand, is that a fairly accurate description of most liberals in politics? Yes, it is. Most of them aren't evil per se, but as Margaret Thatcher said,


_"Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag."_

Liberals view themselves as good people because they're liberals. People who are outside of that ugly little bit of circular reasoning don't have such a benign view of their horrible behavior. So, what reason could you have to dislike liberals?

...

25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals - John Hawkins - Page full


----------



## rightwinger

> .   4) Liberals are actually bothered by people who do love America. On the rare occasion when you do see a liberal waving a flag, look for a camera.



When you actually post crap like this you lose all credibility. 

Our side loves America, their side hates America

Can you actually come up with a more childlike view of political philosophy?  Is your side really that simple that they buy into rhetoric like that?


----------



## RKMBrown

thanatos144 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surfer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a crock. Repubs don't want to pay for liberals' baby-killing, welfare, birth control, housing, medical bills, education, incarceration and godless behavior. Most Repubs are fed up with footing the bill for loser liberals. Most liberals have no concept of self-sufficiency, self-reliance or self-respect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans just want all of these things to disappear, but have no clue how to accomplish that other than banning them.  And that's the problem:  the party of individual rights and self-sufficiency, is busy telling people how to live their lives.  No abortions, no birth control, no medical bills, or, my personal favourite "godless behaviour".
> 
> I notice especially that women's health care is high on the list of things they don't want to fund.  Women having sex always drives right-wingers to distraction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No demanding we pay for your slutish behavior drives us nuts.... Get a fucking job and pay for the pill yourself or cross your fucking legs.
Click to expand...

And the war on women continues.


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> .   4) Liberals are actually bothered by people who do love America. On the rare occasion when you do see a liberal waving a flag, look for a camera.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you actually post crap like this you lose all credibility.
> 
> Our side loves Amaerica, their side hates America
> 
> Can you actually come up with a more childlike view of political philosophy?  Is your side really that simple that they buy into rhetoric like that?
Click to expand...


And that would actually mean something if it did not come from the biggest turd of this thread.


----------



## Foxfyre

American_Jihad said:


> *25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals*
> 
> John Hawkins | May 11, 2013
> 
> Is every liberal an immoral, nasty tempered, habitual liar who accuses people of racism for fun and trashes his own country because he thinks it makes him look sophisticated? Of course, not! On the other hand, is that a fairly accurate description of most liberals in politics? Yes, it is. Most of them aren't evil per se, but as Margaret Thatcher said,
> 
> 
> _"Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag."_
> 
> Liberals view themselves as good people because they're liberals. People who are outside of that ugly little bit of circular reasoning don't have such a benign view of their horrible behavior. So, what reason could you have to dislike liberals?
> 
> ...
> 
> 25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals - John Hawkins - Page full



Actually that is a great list and the author put a lot of thought into it.   It pretty well summarizes why liberalism gets a bad rap from people who do embrace concepts the Founders wrote into the Constitution, who are not ashamed to be people of faith or openly patriotic, and who believe there are traditional American values worth preserving and promoting.

The one on the list that really struck a chord with me as we are entering the next budget/debt ceiling raise fight was this one:

*12) A policy that makes liberals feel superior and caring that doesn't work and wastes billions is considered a smashing success because they genuinely DON'T CARE WHETHER THEIR POLICIES ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE OR NOT. *

I would have written it however:

*Liberals feel superior, caring, and righteous when they support programs with noble sounding titles that waste billions, don't deliver what their titles suggest, and don't help people but sometimes hurt them.   And they condemn and accuse conservatives who want to end or defund those same programs.*


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, but liberalism is just foolish enough to try to connect the two when no connection was made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a question of "liberalism" or of politics at all.  It's a question of logic.
> 
> This inability to define terms is even worse than I imagined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well, in this case I'll put my reading comprehension skills up against yours any day of the week.
> 
> Example:   We just acquired some  North Carolinans, passionate liberals with  good hearts who brightens our day, and are sometimes jerks.
> 
> I don't see having a good heart as related to sometimes being a jerk.  I don't see all North Carolinans as as having  good hearts or brightening my day.   I don't see the three traits attributed to  in that sentence as being necessarily related in any way.
> 
> But if you read my sentence in the same way you interpreted Surfer's, you do.   And THAT is what makes your leap to judgment illogical and, I might add, mean spirited.
Click to expand...


I was not aware you can own North Carolinians.  I'll have to find that aisle in the grocery store.

Btw _brightens _is singluar; doesn't agree with your plural noun.  I'm the child of two proofreaders, Foxy.   However I don't disagree with your spelling of _Carolinans_; it's more logical that _Carolinians _(I keep asking people where "Ecuadoria" is) so you get a thumbs-up for that. 

Anyway, that out of the way and fixing the number to We just acquired some  North Carolinans, passionate liberals with good hearts who brighten our day, and are sometimes jerks, your analogy doesn't work, because your phrase passionate liberals with  good hearts who brighten our day, and are sometimes jerks is a compound supplementary adjectival phrase; it's doesn't follow as a _definition _of _North Carolinans_; you simply expanded on the simple description of where they were from.  You have not excluded the possibility that other North Carolinans could be non-liberals, could nave non-good hearts, might not brighten our day, are not sometimes jerks, or any combination; you've described the specific North Carolinans you first referenced.

But you definitely get points for _Carolinans_.  I'm going to adopt it.  Good eye. 

To the original point though: analyzing what a sentence means still has nothing whatsoever to do with political ideologies.  So I'd say trying to make that stretch just to get a dig in on whatever "liberals" means, that's where the mean-spiritedness lies.


----------



## Surfer

Dragonlady said:


> Republicans just want all of these things to disappear, but have no clue how to accomplish that other than banning them.And that's the problem:  the party of individual rights and self-sufficiency, is busy telling people how to live their lives.  No abortions, no birth control, no medical bills, or, my personal favourite "godless behaviour".I notice especially that women's health care is high on the list of things they don't want to fund.  Women having sex always drives right-wingers to distraction.



Bull. Republicans are for self-sufficiency. Liberals are for handouts. Most Republicans are winners. Most liberals are losers. Repubs don't want to fund ANYONE'S health care and rightly so: it is NOT their job/responsibility. Godless liberals...



thanatos144 said:


> No demanding we pay for your slutish behavior drives us nuts.... Get a fucking job and pay for the pill yourself or cross your fucking legs.



AMEN!


----------



## Wake

My contention is that liberals should strive to be more self-reliant and less radical, and that conservatives should be more willing to care about their fellow human beings.


----------



## Pogo

Surfer said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans just want all of these things to disappear, but have no clue how to accomplish that other than banning them.And that's the problem:  the party of individual rights and self-sufficiency, is busy telling people how to live their lives.  No abortions, no birth control, no medical bills, or, my personal favourite "godless behaviour".I notice especially that women's health care is high on the list of things they don't want to fund.  Women having sex always drives right-wingers to distraction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull. Republicans are for self-sufficiency. Liberals are for handouts. Most Republicans are winners. Most liberals are losers. Repubs don't want to fund ANYONE'S health care and rightly so: it is NOT their job/responsibility. Godless liberals...
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No demanding we pay for your slutish behavior drives us nuts.... *Get a fucking job and pay for the pill yourself or cross your fucking legs*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AMEN!
Click to expand...


These two knuckledraggers ^^ demonstrate why this conversation cannot happen.  One contingent is so busy demonizing people, yea verily even unto wild slurs on the moral codes of posters they don't even know, that they can't hear what the demonized side is even saying.  

It would be crawling into the same sewer they call home to suggest that this contingent is representative of the entire "side" -- yet we hear no one from that "side" condemning it, so we're left to assume assent.  

Until that bit of hatred is resolved, nothing gets done here.


----------



## RKMBrown

Wake said:


> My contention is that liberals should strive to be more self-reliant and less radical, and that conservatives should be more willing to care about their fellow human beings.


Modern liberals believe caring for people means taking money from Peter to pay Paul for sitting on his ass. Intelligent humans understand that is a recipe for disaster. You want to care for people? Stop crippling them with your coddling.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> And the war on women continues.



You didn't pay for my coffee this morning - so you're waging a war on men.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the war on women continues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't pay for my coffee this morning - so you're waging a war on men.
Click to expand...


Failure to stipend your coffee is equivalent to telling a poster you don't know to "get a fucking job or cross your fucking legs".

Life in Bizzaroworld.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> Failure to stipend your coffee is equivalent to telling a poster you don't know to "get a fucking job or cross your fucking legs".
> 
> Life in Bizzaroworld.



Yes it is, even if you're too stupid to grasp it.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the war on women continues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't pay for my coffee this morning - so you're waging a war on men.
Click to expand...


Did I call you a coffee slut that needs to learn to say no to creamers?

;-)


----------



## Wake

RKMBrown said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> My contention is that liberals should strive to be more self-reliant and less radical, and that conservatives should be more willing to care about their fellow human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> Modern liberals believe caring for people means taking money from Peter to pay Paul for sitting on his ass. Intelligent humans understand that is a recipe for disaster. You want to care for people? Stop crippling them with your coddling.
Click to expand...


I think it is generally a wise thing to learn as much as you can about a person before talking with him or her. That, and not making general partisan assertions that are likely to come crashing down when there are civil requests for credible sources. Making an assertion is different from stating an opinion.

Modern liberals may or may not believe that caring for people means taking money from Peter to pay Paul for "sitting on his ass." Already that sounds like a very dishonest claim. Why? Because I don't think you get to speak for every single modern liberal out there. Imagine, Brown, if I told you that every single conservative out there does not care one iota about women. That, too, is another partisan assertion&#8212;another arrow&#8212;flying instead towards _your_ camp. How does it make you feel when someone makes this quip and expects you to respond with something other than indignance? I'm no liberal, but I don't mind voicing my thoughts when either faction makes unreasonable statements.

There may actually be modern liberals out there who don't think they way you think they do. They may be the minority, but you can't really say they don't exist. It's always better to qualify your statements Brown because it makes arguments more honest. Also, "Paul" may not always be on his ass, but may be a young man or woman in dire need of help who is desperately trying to carve out a future. That person may even be a poor conservative. Or, "Paul" could be injured, sickly, desperate, indebted, you name it. I am certain there are conservatives out there who, if it weren't for government programs like FoodShare, would suffer and be homeless.

As for "intelligence," please be careful when using that word. Intelligence is *solely* the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills. Intelligence is not and never will be synonymous with any political ideology out there. Not ever. So no, don't tell me that "intelligent people" can only be intelligent if they believe one thing or another. That notion is partisan bull crap. There are highly intelligent people on both the Left and the Right, so pretending that only one side has a monopoly on collective intelligence is a sign of partisan zealotry.

It is my opinion that to care for people you need to help them become self-reliant. By teaching a man how to fish, he learns to gather enough fish for himself to live... from that point onward. However, America isn't one big lake with a nearly endless line of fishermen. Sometimes, people need assistance... or they've going to starve, suffer, and maybe even die. I am in favor of giving people *limited* assistance for a set period of time, depending on their respective situations, while also working with these people to find jobs. Lastly, it must be reconciled that right now it is *very difficult to find a job*... with many people looking for only a limited amount of jobs there's going to be massive competition and a lot of suffering. That *needs* to be understood. It must. For example, I'm a Caregiver/CNA. I had to apply with resume in hand at over 25 different organizations just to net a job that's currently part-time. *It's really tough out there*.


----------



## Pogo

Wake said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> My contention is that liberals should strive to be more self-reliant and less radical, and that conservatives should be more willing to care about their fellow human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> Modern liberals believe caring for people means taking money from Peter to pay Paul for sitting on his ass. Intelligent humans understand that is a recipe for disaster. You want to care for people? Stop crippling them with your coddling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is generally a wise thing to learn as much as you can about a person before talking with him or her. That, and making general partisan assertions that are like to come crashing down when there are civil requests for credible sources. Making an assertion is different from stating an opinion.
> 
> Modern liberals may or may not believe that caring for people means taking money from Peter to pay Paul for "sitting on his ass." Already that sounds like a very dishonest claim. Why? Because I don't think you get to speak for every single modern liberal out there. Imagine, Brown, if I told you that every single conservative out there does not care one iota about women. That, too, is another partisan assertionanother arrowflying instead towards _your_ camp. How does it make you feel when someone makes this quip and expects you to respond with something other than indignance? I'm no liberal, but I don't mind voicing my thoughts when either faction makes unreasonable statements.
> 
> There may actually be modern liberals out there who don't think they way you think they do. They may be the minority, but you can't really say they don't exist. It's always better to qualify your statements Brown because it makes arguments more honest. Also, "Paul" may not always be on his ass, but may be a young man or woman in dire need of help who is desperately trying to carve out a future. That person may even be a poor conservative. Or, "Paul" could be injured, sickly, desperate, indebted, you name it. I am certain there are conservatives out there who, if it weren't for government programs like FoodShare, would suffer and be homeless.
> 
> As for "intelligence," please be careful when using that word. Intelligence is *solely* the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills. Intelligence is not and never will be synonymous with any political ideology out there. Not ever. So no, don't tell me that "intelligent people" can only be intelligent if they believe one thing or another. That notion is partisan bull crap. There are highly intelligent people on both the Left and the Right, so pretending that only one side has a monopoly on collective intelligence is a sign of partisan zealotry.
> 
> It is my opinion that to care for people you need to help them become self-reliant. By teaching a man how to fish, he learns to gather enough fish for himself to live... from that point onward. However, America isn't one big lake with a nearly endless line of fishermen. Sometimes, people need assistance... or they've going to starve, suffer, and maybe even die. I am in favor of giving people *limited* assistance for a set period of time, depending on their respective situations, while also working with these people to find jobs. Lastly, it must be reconciled that right now it is *very difficult to find a job*... with many people looking for only a limited amount of jobs there's going to be massive competition and a lot of suffering. That *needs* to be understood. It must. For example, I'm a Caregiver/CNA. I had to apply with resume in hand at over 25 different organizations just to net a job that's currently part-time. *It's really tough out there*.
Click to expand...


 ^^ Perfect analysis of the fallacy of hasty generalization.


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans just want all of these things to disappear, but have no clue how to accomplish that other than banning them.  And that's the problem:  the party of individual rights and self-sufficiency, is busy telling people how to live their lives.  No abortions, no birth control, no medical bills, or, my personal favourite "godless behaviour".
> 
> I notice especially that women's health care is high on the list of things they don't want to fund.  Women having sex always drives right-wingers to distraction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No demanding we pay for your slutish behavior drives us nuts.... Get a fucking job and pay for the pill yourself or cross your fucking legs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the war on women continues.
Click to expand...


there is no war on women.


----------



## thanatos144

Pogo said:


> Surfer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans just want all of these things to disappear, but have no clue how to accomplish that other than banning them.And that's the problem:  the party of individual rights and self-sufficiency, is busy telling people how to live their lives.  No abortions, no birth control, no medical bills, or, my personal favourite "godless behaviour".I notice especially that women's health care is high on the list of things they don't want to fund.  Women having sex always drives right-wingers to distraction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull. Republicans are for self-sufficiency. Liberals are for handouts. Most Republicans are winners. Most liberals are losers. Repubs don't want to fund ANYONE'S health care and rightly so: it is NOT their job/responsibility. Godless liberals...
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No demanding we pay for your slutish behavior drives us nuts.... *Get a fucking job and pay for the pill yourself or cross your fucking legs*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AMEN!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These two knuckledraggers ^^ demonstrate why this conversation cannot happen.  One contingent is so busy demonizing people, yea verily even unto wild slurs on the moral codes of posters they don't even know, that they can't hear what the demonized side is even saying.
> 
> It would be crawling into the same sewer they call home to suggest that this contingent is representative of the entire "side" -- yet we hear no one from that "side" condemning it, so we're left to assume assent.
> 
> Until that bit of hatred is resolved, nothing gets done here.
Click to expand...


stop asking me to pay for your fucking pill


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> Did I call you a coffee slut that needs to learn to say no to creamers?
> 
> ;-)



The proper term is Caffiend...

And I didn't go on national TV demanding that the failure of taxpayers to provide free Starbucks to all men is a national health crisis..


----------



## Pogo

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No demanding we pay for your slutish behavior drives us nuts.... *Get a fucking job and pay for the pill yourself or cross your fucking legs*.
> 
> 
> 
> And the war on women continues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is no war on women.
Click to expand...


Try reading your own post quoted above.  Duh.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I call you a coffee slut that needs to learn to say no to creamers?
> 
> ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proper term is Caffiend...
> 
> And I didn't go on national TV demanding that the failure of taxpayers to provide free Starbucks to all men is a national health crisis..
Click to expand...


Nor did Fluke, even by analogy.  But perhaps you're "too stupid to grasp it".


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> Nor did Fluke, even by analogy.  But perhaps you're "too stupid to grasp it".



No, Fluke went on TV and demanded that taxpayers provide contraceptives for all women.

And saying "no" to partisan scum like Fluke is hardly a "war on women." 

More of a war on petulant spoiled brats who demand that others pay for what they want.

Standard Disclaimer: I'd say "fuck Fluke," but everyone has done that already...


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did Fluke, even by analogy.  But perhaps you're "too stupid to grasp it".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Fluke went on TV and demanded that taxpayers provide contraceptives for all women.
> 
> And saying "no" to partisan scum like Fluke is hardly a "war on women."
> 
> More of a war on petulant spoiled brats who demand that others pay for what they want.
> 
> Standard Disclaimer: I'd say "fuck Fluke," but everyone has done that already...
Click to expand...


No, she did not.  Period.  Pun intended.  But this is what happens when you get your news from a monger of politics porn.  Truth is the first casualty.

Reading comprehension strikes again: the 'war on women' comment was made in response to "Get a fucking job and pay for the pill yourself or cross your fucking legs."  The poster of that comment (thenatos), was addressing not Sandra Fluke, but another poster, a person he doesn't even know.

If that's not a war on women, grits ain't groceries.


----------



## Redfish

Pogo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did Fluke, even by analogy.  But perhaps you're "too stupid to grasp it".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Fluke went on TV and demanded that taxpayers provide contraceptives for all women.
> 
> And saying "no" to partisan scum like Fluke is hardly a "war on women."
> 
> More of a war on petulant spoiled brats who demand that others pay for what they want.
> 
> Standard Disclaimer: I'd say "fuck Fluke," but everyone has done that already...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, she did not.  Period.  Pun intended.  But this is what happens when you get your news from a monger of politics porn.  Truth is the first casualty.
> 
> Reading comprehension strikes again: the 'war on women' comment was made in response to "Get a fucking job and pay for the pill yourself or cross your fucking legs."  The poster of that comment (thenatos), was addressing not Sandra Fluke, but another poster, a person he doesn't even know.
> 
> If that's not a war on women, grits ain't groceries.
Click to expand...


grits are bought in grocery stores--------soooooooo  they are groceries


----------



## Pogo

Redfish said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Fluke went on TV and demanded that taxpayers provide contraceptives for all women.
> 
> And saying "no" to partisan scum like Fluke is hardly a "war on women."
> 
> More of a war on petulant spoiled brats who demand that others pay for what they want.
> 
> Standard Disclaimer: I'd say "fuck Fluke," but everyone has done that already...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she did not.  Period.  Pun intended.  But this is what happens when you get your news from a monger of politics porn.  Truth is the first casualty.
> 
> Reading comprehension strikes again: the 'war on women' comment was made in response to "Get a fucking job and pay for the pill yourself or cross your fucking legs."  The poster of that comment (thenatos), was addressing not Sandra Fluke, but another poster, a person he doesn't even know.
> 
> If that's not a war on women, grits ain't groceries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> grits are bought in grocery stores--------soooooooo  they are groceries
Click to expand...


Exactly the point.


I'll just wait here while y'all catch up...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> No, she did not.  Period.



Lying does not help your case.



> Pun intended.  But this is what happens when you get your news from a monger of politics porn.  Truth is the first casualty.



"Truth" defined as "that which serves the party."



> Reading comprehension strikes again: the 'war on women' comment was made in response to "Get a fucking job and pay for the pill yourself or cross your fucking legs."  The poster of that comment (thenatos), was addressing not Sandra Fluke, but another poster, a person he doesn't even know.
> 
> If that's not a war on women, grits ain't groceries.



Again Pogo, you are a partisan sychophant. The reference traces back to a slander campaign that you little Goebbels of the DNC launched in coordination with Flukes performance.


Despite your lies, Fluke did demand that under Fascist Care - ALL women be provided free birth control.

Cost of birth control pills for a month - $3

Reward for being a sleazy demagogue for the democrats - priceless.


----------



## RKMBrown

Wake said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> My contention is that liberals should strive to be more self-reliant and less radical, and that conservatives should be more willing to care about their fellow human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> Modern liberals believe caring for people means taking money from Peter to pay Paul for sitting on his ass. Intelligent humans understand that is a recipe for disaster. You want to care for people? Stop crippling them with your coddling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is generally a wise thing to learn as much as you can about a person before talking with him or her. That, and not making general partisan assertions that are likely to come crashing down when there are civil requests for credible sources. Making an assertion is different from stating an opinion.
> 
> Modern liberals may or may not believe that caring for people means taking money from Peter to pay Paul for "sitting on his ass." Already that sounds like a very dishonest claim. Why? Because I don't think you get to speak for every single modern liberal out there. Imagine, Brown, if I told you that every single conservative out there does not care one iota about women. That, too, is another partisan assertion&#8212;another arrow&#8212;flying instead towards _your_ camp. How does it make you feel when someone makes this quip and expects you to respond with something other than indignance? I'm no liberal, but I don't mind voicing my thoughts when either faction makes unreasonable statements.
> 
> There may actually be modern liberals out there who don't think they way you think they do. They may be the minority, but you can't really say they don't exist. It's always better to qualify your statements Brown because it makes arguments more honest. Also, "Paul" may not always be on his ass, but may be a young man or woman in dire need of help who is desperately trying to carve out a future. That person may even be a poor conservative. Or, "Paul" could be injured, sickly, desperate, indebted, you name it. I am certain there are conservatives out there who, if it weren't for government programs like FoodShare, would suffer and be homeless.
> 
> As for "intelligence," please be careful when using that word. Intelligence is *solely* the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills. Intelligence is not and never will be synonymous with any political ideology out there. Not ever. So no, don't tell me that "intelligent people" can only be intelligent if they believe one thing or another. That notion is partisan bull crap. There are highly intelligent people on both the Left and the Right, so pretending that only one side has a monopoly on collective intelligence is a sign of partisan zealotry.
> 
> It is my opinion that to care for people you need to help them become self-reliant. By teaching a man how to fish, he learns to gather enough fish for himself to live... from that point onward. However, America isn't one big lake with a nearly endless line of fishermen. Sometimes, people need assistance... or they've going to starve, suffer, and maybe even die. I am in favor of giving people *limited* assistance for a set period of time, depending on their respective situations, while also working with these people to find jobs. Lastly, it must be reconciled that right now it is *very difficult to find a job*... with many people looking for only a limited amount of jobs there's going to be massive competition and a lot of suffering. That *needs* to be understood. It must. For example, I'm a Caregiver/CNA. I had to apply with resume in hand at over 25 different organizations just to net a job that's currently part-time. *It's really tough out there*.
Click to expand...


I'm not a modern conservative. I'm a constitutional conservative. I take great insult by your statements. Hard out there? You ignorant apologizers have never seen hardship. Stop coddling these losers. Let them live a life off the dole if they can. Sometimes you have to go where the work is if you insist on specialization and a high rate of pay.


----------



## Surfer

Wake said:


> My contention is that liberals should strive to be more self-reliant and less radical, and that conservatives should be more willing to care about their fellow human beings.



Conservatives do care: they just don't want to pay for others' baby-killing, sodomy results, healthcare, housing etc. Conservatives believe in self-reliance. 



RKMBrown said:


> Modern liberals believe caring for people means taking money from Peter to pay Paul for sitting on his ass. Intelligent humans understand that is a recipe for disaster. You want to care for people? Stop crippling them with your coddling.



AMEN!


----------



## Immanuel

thanatos144 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post is full of shit.....Any republican pushing socialism isn't a republican but a coward. Any libertarian who says they are not liberal is lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are not any Republicans then.  They have just absconded with the name.  They are at best a bunch of damned Neo-cons who are as bad if not worse than progressives.  They are just as damned authoritarian as their damned progressives counterparts.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a shame you are just another young fool who thinks there is no differences in parties. This is what liberal indoctrination creates.
Click to expand...


I wish... I was young again.  

It is not there there are NO differences.  However, their goals are exactly the same... riches, power, domination of those they believe beneath them... Um, that would be you.  Both sides are big government authoritarian parties and they laugh at people like you who are not capable of understanding that you have been duped.

Immie


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, she did not.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying does not help your case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pun intended.  But this is what happens when you get your news from a monger of politics porn.  Truth is the first casualty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Truth" defined as "that which serves the party."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension strikes again: the 'war on women' comment was made in response to "Get a fucking job and pay for the pill yourself or cross your fucking legs."  The poster of that comment (thenatos), was addressing not Sandra Fluke, but another poster, a person he doesn't even know.
> 
> If that's not a war on women, grits ain't groceries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again Pogo, you are a partisan sychophant. The reference traces back to a slander campaign that you little Goebbels of the DNC launched in coordination with Flukes performance.
> 
> 
> Despite your lies, Fluke did demand that under Fascist Care - ALL women be provided free birth control.
> 
> Cost of birth control pills for a month - $3
> 
> Reward for being a sleazy demagogue for the democrats - priceless.
Click to expand...


Fluke is a paid talking head who goes around from talk show to talk show to push a decidedly big government liberal agenda presumably on behalf of women.   Her mind numbing testimony to Congress should be a red flag to freedom loving Americans everywhere - beware of people like Fluke and their ilk, because if we stop paying attention, they'll take it all and we all will be nothing more than servants to the state and people like her.

Her entire testimony to Congress here:
?Mind-Numbing? Audio of a Law Student Telling Congress Why Religious Colleges Should Pay for Her Birth Control | Video | TheBlaze.com

In fairness to her, she didn't really ask for the taxpayer to furnish her contraceptives.  She wanted Congress to force Georgetown to cover treatment of certain medical conditions--something the Georgetown student insurance policy already covered.  The real issue was never contraceptives but not allowing a religious institituion of higher learning to follow its own conscience.

I dare our liberal friends to watch this clip from beginning to end--takes 3 or 4 minutes--but I am pretty sure none will:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN-QhBb0sAg]Fluke You Democrats! The Truth about Sandra Fluke's Dishonest Contraception Testimony - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Immanuel

rightwinger said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, I have always respected you
> 
> But do you realize what a complete moron you sound like when you post shit like that?  Do you understand what 100% Socialism means?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly I do... but maybe you are drunk today?  Did I say we would ever get to 100% Socialism?  Nope.  I'm sure this nation will collapse long before that happens.
> 
> Did I even say where we are right now?  Nope.
> 
> However, the direction we are going is in fact towards a much more Socialistic nation and it will end up in collapsing this nation.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In fact, we are not anywhere close to 100% Socialism
> 
> We still enjoy some of the lowest tax rates in generations as well as deregulation implemented by Republicans which helped lead to a banking crisis.
> 
> Republicans define socialism as any time government lifts a finger to help the people. Something they whine about as "redistributing wealth"
Click to expand...


And when will you yell "STOP!"?  After it is too late?  Oh, wait, it already is too late.

Immie


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, she did not.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying does not help your case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pun intended.  But this is what happens when you get your news from a monger of politics porn.  Truth is the first casualty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Truth" defined as "that which serves the party."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension strikes again: the 'war on women' comment was made in response to "Get a fucking job and pay for the pill yourself or cross your fucking legs."  The poster of that comment (thenatos), was addressing not Sandra Fluke, but another poster, a person he doesn't even know.
> 
> If that's not a war on women, grits ain't groceries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again Pogo, you are a partisan sychophant. The reference traces back to a slander campaign that you little Goebbels of the DNC launched in coordination with Flukes performance.
> 
> 
> Despite your lies, Fluke did demand that under Fascist Care - ALL women be provided free birth control.
> 
> Cost of birth control pills for a month - $3
> 
> Reward for being a sleazy demagogue for the democrats - priceless.
Click to expand...


"Truth" is defined as "reality" -- as opposed to "that which one pulls out of one's lower digestive tract".

Fluke didn't "demand" squat.  And nothing she did talk about referred to "all women".  If either of these were true you could simply quote it.

Then again you're the same clown who equates anyone who calls bullshit on your silly droppings with Pol Pot.  Why don't you go back to pulling the legs off flies or whatever it is you do to exercise that pea brain with these expected results?


----------



## Pogo

RKMBrown said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern liberals believe caring for people means taking money from Peter to pay Paul for sitting on his ass. Intelligent humans understand that is a recipe for disaster. You want to care for people? Stop crippling them with your coddling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is generally a wise thing to learn as much as you can about a person before talking with him or her. That, and not making general partisan assertions that are likely to come crashing down when there are civil requests for credible sources. Making an assertion is different from stating an opinion.
> 
> Modern liberals may or may not believe that caring for people means taking money from Peter to pay Paul for "sitting on his ass." Already that sounds like a very dishonest claim. Why? Because I don't think you get to speak for every single modern liberal out there. Imagine, Brown, if I told you that every single conservative out there does not care one iota about women. That, too, is another partisan assertionanother arrowflying instead towards _your_ camp. How does it make you feel when someone makes this quip and expects you to respond with something other than indignance? I'm no liberal, but I don't mind voicing my thoughts when either faction makes unreasonable statements.
> 
> There may actually be modern liberals out there who don't think they way you think they do. They may be the minority, but you can't really say they don't exist. It's always better to qualify your statements Brown because it makes arguments more honest. Also, "Paul" may not always be on his ass, but may be a young man or woman in dire need of help who is desperately trying to carve out a future. That person may even be a poor conservative. Or, "Paul" could be injured, sickly, desperate, indebted, you name it. I am certain there are conservatives out there who, if it weren't for government programs like FoodShare, would suffer and be homeless.
> 
> As for "intelligence," please be careful when using that word. Intelligence is *solely* the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills. Intelligence is not and never will be synonymous with any political ideology out there. Not ever. So no, don't tell me that "intelligent people" can only be intelligent if they believe one thing or another. That notion is partisan bull crap. There are highly intelligent people on both the Left and the Right, so pretending that only one side has a monopoly on collective intelligence is a sign of partisan zealotry.
> 
> It is my opinion that to care for people you need to help them become self-reliant. By teaching a man how to fish, he learns to gather enough fish for himself to live... from that point onward. However, America isn't one big lake with a nearly endless line of fishermen. Sometimes, people need assistance... or they've going to starve, suffer, and maybe even die. I am in favor of giving people *limited* assistance for a set period of time, depending on their respective situations, while also working with these people to find jobs. Lastly, it must be reconciled that right now it is *very difficult to find a job*... with many people looking for only a limited amount of jobs there's going to be massive competition and a lot of suffering. That *needs* to be understood. It must. For example, I'm a Caregiver/CNA. I had to apply with resume in hand at over 25 different organizations just to net a job that's currently part-time. *It's really tough out there*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a modern conservative. I'm a constitutional conservative. I take great insult by your statements. Hard out there? You ignorant apologizers have never seen hardship. Stop coddling these losers. Let them live a life off the dole if they can. Sometimes you have to go where the work is if you insist on specialization and a high rate of pay.
Click to expand...


His post isn't about that. It's about the fallacy of blanket statements.


----------



## numan

'

I would like to figure out a way to take more money from people who begrudge government taking money from them to support wastrels, and eliminate taxes on those who are willing to provide support for their fellow citizens.

I have no political axe to grind -- I just want to annoy the mean-spirited misers and make them miserable, and teach them their true, lowly place in the universe.

.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> "Truth" is defined as "reality" -- as opposed to "that which one pulls out of one's lower digestive tract".
> 
> Fluke didn't "demand" squat.  And nothing she did talk about referred to "all women".  If either of these were true you could simply quote it.



Bull-shit.

Fluke demanded the Georgetown specifically, and all employers generally, be compelled by law under Fascist Care to provided contraception.

{.
I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in
its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities *across the
country* have suffered similar burdens
.
*We are all grateful for the new regulation
that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.*}

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd hearing.pdf



> Then again you're the same clown who equates anyone who calls bullshit on your silly droppings with Pol Pot.  Why don't you go back to pulling the legs off flies or whatever it is you do to exercise that pea brain with these expected results?



So again, you're lying through your teeth, as you tend to do - and then retreating to ad hom as if it somehow alters reality.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Truth" is defined as "reality" -- as opposed to "that which one pulls out of one's lower digestive tract".
> 
> Fluke didn't "demand" squat.  And nothing she did talk about referred to "all women".  If either of these were true you could simply quote it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull-shit.
> 
> Fluke demanded the Georgetown specifically, and all employers generally, be compelled by law under Fascist Care to provided contraception.
> 
> {.
> I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in
> its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities *across the
> country* have suffered similar burdens
> .
> *We are all grateful for the new regulation
> that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.*}
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd hearing.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then again you're the same clown who equates anyone who calls bullshit on your silly droppings with Pol Pot.  Why don't you go back to pulling the legs off flies or whatever it is you do to exercise that pea brain with these expected results?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again, you're lying through your teeth, as you tend to do - and then retreating to ad hom as if it somehow alters reality.
Click to expand...


And where do you see a "demand" in there, moron?  And where do you see "all women" in there, Pothead?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> And where do you see a "demand" in there, moron?  And where do you see "all women" in there, Pothead?



Bolded and underlined - stupid.

Your lack of integrity in the face of documented fact is reaching Sallow levels.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where do you see a "demand" in there, moron?  And where do you see "all women" in there, Pothead?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bolded and underlined - stupid.
> 
> Your lack of integrity in the face of documented fact is reaching Sallow levels.
Click to expand...


Ah.  So "we are grateful" is the same as "we demand".  

And you think anyone that takes issue with your drivel equals Pol Pot.

See the pattern yet?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> Ah.  So "we are grateful" is the same as "we demand".
> 
> And you think anyone that takes issue with your drivel equals Pol Pot.
> 
> See the pattern yet?



"Regulation" has a meaning, sparky.

And the meaning isn't "voluntary."


----------



## JimBowie1958

Pogo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Truth" is defined as "reality" -- as opposed to "that which one pulls out of one's lower digestive tract".
> 
> Fluke didn't "demand" squat.  And nothing she did talk about referred to "all women".  If either of these were true you could simply quote it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull-shit.
> 
> Fluke demanded the Georgetown specifically, and all employers generally, be compelled by law under Fascist Care to provided contraception.
> 
> {.
> I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in
> its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities *across the
> country* have suffered similar burdens
> .
> *We are all grateful for the new regulation
> that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.*}
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd hearing.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then again you're the same clown who equates anyone who calls bullshit on your silly droppings with Pol Pot.  Why don't you go back to pulling the legs off flies or whatever it is you do to exercise that pea brain with these expected results?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again, you're lying through your teeth, as you tend to do - and then retreating to ad hom as if it somehow alters reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where do you see a "demand" in there, moron?  And where do you see "all women" in there, Pothead?
Click to expand...


She has been going in front of any governmental counsel, NGO, or politician saying she wants her birth control paid for by the damned government.

What is with you liberals lately? It's as if you think posturing as complete dumbasses is somehow a winning rhetorical strategy.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.  So "we are grateful" is the same as "we demand".
> 
> And you think anyone that takes issue with your drivel equals Pol Pot.
> 
> See the pattern yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Regulation" has a meaning, sparky.
> 
> And the meaning isn't "voluntary."
Click to expand...


It means whatever a libtard wants it to mean at any given time, the same way they rape the rest of the language when it suits them.


----------



## Pogo

JimBowie1958 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.  So "we are grateful" is the same as "we demand".
> 
> And you think anyone that takes issue with your drivel equals Pol Pot.
> 
> See the pattern yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Regulation" has a meaning, sparky.
> 
> And the meaning isn't "voluntary."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means whatever a libtard wants it to mean at any given time, the same way they rape the rest of the language when it suits them.
Click to expand...


From a faction (and a thread) that cannot even begin to define the word "liberal".
Oh the irony.


----------



## American_Jihad

rightwinger said:


> .   4) Liberals are actually bothered by people who do love America. On the rare occasion when you do see a liberal waving a flag, look for a camera.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you actually post crap like this you lose all credibility.
> 
> Our side loves America, their side hates America
> 
> Can you actually come up with a more childlike view of political philosophy?  Is your side really that simple that they buy into rhetoric like that?
Click to expand...


Did that get you wee weed up, good here's some more...








*Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill*

Publishes extensive study on 'Psychological Causes of Political Madness'​
...

Read more at Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill


Oh my, the Liberal Mind and how it's occupied...


----------



## Dragonlady

JimBowie1958 said:


> She has been going in front of any governmental counsel, NGO, or politician saying she wants her birth control paid for by the damned government.



This is an absolute lie.  Fluke asked that her *health care plan*, which *SHE* pays for as part of her tuition, provide contraception.  Not the government, not her employer, *her health insurance plan*.

When slagging someone, it really is useful to get your facts straight.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragonlady said:


> This is an absolute lie.  Fluke asked that her *health care plan*, which *SHE* pays for as part of her tuition, provide contraception.  Not the government, not her employer, *her health insurance plan*.
> 
> When slagging someone, it really is useful to get your facts straight.



False - and deliberately so.

Fluke went before congress to pimp for Obama's Fascist care. In the process, she promoted the violation of the 1st amendment by advocating that congress force religious institutions to provide services that violate their religions. Her testimony has been posted - I don't know why you thought you could get away with blatantly lying?

Why do people hate leftists? Maybe because you're all a bunch of fucking liars?


----------



## Pogo

American_Jihad said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .   4) Liberals are actually bothered by people who do love America. On the rare occasion when you do see a liberal waving a flag, look for a camera.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you actually post crap like this you lose all credibility.
> 
> Our side loves America, their side hates America
> 
> Can you actually come up with a more childlike view of political philosophy?  Is your side really that simple that they buy into rhetoric like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did that get you wee weed up, good here's some more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill*
> 
> Publishes extensive study on 'Psychological Causes of Political Madness'​...
> Read more at Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill
> 
> Oh my, the Liberal Mind and how it's occupied...
Click to expand...


​


Uncensored2008 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an absolute lie.  Fluke asked that her *health care plan*, which *SHE* pays for as part of her tuition, provide contraception.  Not the government, not her employer, *her health insurance plan*.
> 
> When slagging someone, it really is useful to get your facts straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False - and deliberately so.
> 
> Fluke went before congress to pimp for Obama's Fascist care. In the process, she promoted the violation of the 1st amendment by advocating that congress force religious institutions to provide services that violate their religions. Her testimony has been posted - I don't know why you thought you could get away with blatantly lying?
> 
> Why do people hate leftists? Maybe because you're all a bunch of fucking liars?
Click to expand...


 ​
I can only take so much affirmation in one day.

I've noted way back that "liberal" has been hijacked (and conflated with "leftist") into a code word for blanket-statement demonization in a quest to eliminate all opposition and run a one-party state.  And you guys keep confirming it.

Yeah we GET that.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> I can only take so much affirmation in one day.
> 
> I've noted way back that "liberal" has been hijacked (and conflated with "leftist") into a code word for blanket-statement demonization in a quest to eliminate all opposition and run a one-party state.  And you guys keep confirming it.
> 
> Yeah we GET that.



I said leftist, not liberal. There is nothing even remotely liberal about you. You have nothing in common with Thomas Paine - Pol Pot on the OTH is your ideological twin.

You lied about Fluke, you got caught - you lied some more - and the facts were highlighted - then you got shrill - and the facts were reiterated. 

So no doubt you'll declare yourself victorious and scamper back to the gutter now...


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can only take so much affirmation in one day.
> 
> I've noted way back that "liberal" has been hijacked (and conflated with "leftist") into a code word for blanket-statement demonization in a quest to eliminate all opposition and run a one-party state.  And you guys keep confirming it.
> 
> Yeah we GET that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said leftist, not liberal. There is nothing even remotely liberal about you. You have nothing in common with Thomas Paine - Pol Pot on the OTH is your ideological twin.
> 
> You lied about Fluke, you got caught - you lied some more - and the facts were highlighted - then you got shrill - and the facts were reiterated.
Click to expand...




If I "lied", by definition you could quote it.

Oops.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> If I "lied", by definition you could quote it.
> 
> Oops.



Shrill didn't work for you the first time - and you know what Einstein said about doing the same thing yet expecting different results..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/philosophy/242169-why-do-people-hate-liberals-133.html#post7620771


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Regulation" has a meaning, sparky.
> 
> And the meaning isn't "voluntary."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means whatever a libtard wants it to mean at any given time, the same way they rape the rest of the language when it suits them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From a faction (and a thread) that cannot even begin to define the word "liberal".
> Oh the irony.
Click to expand...


From the guy who refuses to define the word "liberal".


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> From the guy who refuses to define the word "liberal".



In Pogo's defense  he did define "liberal."

I even publicly agreed with his definition.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the guy who refuses to define the word "liberal".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Pogo's defense  he did define "liberal."
> 
> I even publicly agreed with his definition.
Click to expand...


This is true. It just wasn't what some people wanted to hear.


----------



## Foxfyre

I must have missed that.   Could somebody link it for me please?


----------



## numan

Uncensored2008 said:


> - and you know what Einstein said about doing the same thing yet expecting different results..


There is no documentary evidence that Einstein ever said this about insanity.

Insanity might be more concisely defined as : "America".

.


----------



## rightwinger

American_Jihad said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .   4) Liberals are actually bothered by people who do love America. On the rare occasion when you do see a liberal waving a flag, look for a camera.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you actually post crap like this you lose all credibility.
> 
> Our side loves America, their side hates America
> 
> Can you actually come up with a more childlike view of political philosophy?  Is your side really that simple that they buy into rhetoric like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did that get you wee weed up, good here's some more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill*
> 
> Publishes extensive study on 'Psychological Causes of Political Madness'​
> ...
> 
> Read more at Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill
> 
> 
> Oh my, the Liberal Mind and how it's occupied...
Click to expand...


Ahhh yes.....more pablum for drooling conservatives


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you actually post crap like this you lose all credibility.
> 
> Our side loves America, their side hates America
> 
> Can you actually come up with a more childlike view of political philosophy?  Is your side really that simple that they buy into rhetoric like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did that get you wee weed up, good here's some more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill*
> 
> Publishes extensive study on 'Psychological Causes of Political Madness'​
> ...
> 
> Read more at Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill
> 
> 
> Oh my, the Liberal Mind and how it's occupied...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhh yes.....more pablum for drooling conservatives
Click to expand...






What's your excuse?   For the drooling I mean....


----------



## mamooth

Why do they hate liberals? For the same reason vampires hate sunlight. Yes, it really is that obvious.

Irrationality is threatened by rationality. A liberal can respond with rationality, but the irrational have no rationality to respond with, so they can only respond with raw emotionalism.


----------



## American_Jihad

mamooth said:


> Why do they hate liberals? For the same reason vampires hate sunlight. Yes, it really is that obvious.
> 
> Irrationality is threatened by rationality. A liberal can respond with rationality, but the irrational have no rationality to respond with, so they can only respond with raw emotionalism.



Mamoo, you have the salunsky rules down pat, you've done well cockroach...


----------



## American_Jihad

Pogo said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you actually post crap like this you lose all credibility.
> 
> Our side loves America, their side hates America
> 
> Can you actually come up with a more childlike view of political philosophy?  Is your side really that simple that they buy into rhetoric like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did that get you wee weed up, good here's some more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill*
> 
> Publishes extensive study on 'Psychological Causes of Political Madness'​...
> Read more at Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill
> 
> Oh my, the Liberal Mind and how it's occupied...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an absolute lie.  Fluke asked that her *health care plan*, which *SHE* pays for as part of her tuition, provide contraception.  Not the government, not her employer, *her health insurance plan*.
> 
> When slagging someone, it really is useful to get your facts straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False - and deliberately so.
> 
> Fluke went before congress to pimp for Obama's Fascist care. In the process, she promoted the violation of the 1st amendment by advocating that congress force religious institutions to provide services that violate their religions. Her testimony has been posted - I don't know why you thought you could get away with blatantly lying?
> 
> Why do people hate leftists? Maybe because you're all a bunch of fucking liars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ​
> I can only take so much affirmation in one day.
> 
> I've noted way back that "liberal" has been hijacked (and conflated with "leftist") into a code word for blanket-statement demonization in a quest to eliminate all opposition and run a one-party state.  And you guys keep confirming it.
> 
> Yeah we GET that.
Click to expand...


left-wing keeps changing, liberal to progressive - Google Search ...


----------



## American_Jihad

*50 Things Liberals Love to Hate *

By Mike Gallagher

...

50 Things Liberals Love to Hate - Mike Gallagher - Google Books

Enjoy...


----------



## Bfgrn

American_Jihad said:


> *50 Things Liberals Love to Hate *
> 
> By Mike Gallagher
> 
> ...
> 
> 50 Things Liberals Love to Hate - Mike Gallagher - Google Books
> 
> Enjoy...



Figures you would follow a piece of human excrement like Mike Gallagher


----------



## American_Jihad

Bfgrn said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *50 Things Liberals Love to Hate *
> 
> By Mike Gallagher
> 
> ...
> 
> 50 Things Liberals Love to Hate - Mike Gallagher - Google Books
> 
> Enjoy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figures you would follow a piece of human excrement like Mike Gallagher
Click to expand...


----------



## JimBowie1958

rightwinger said:


> Ahhh yes.....more pablum for drooling conservatives



Lol, that is hilarious coming from an obvious fraud like you who fakes being a 'right winger' by name and lies in almost every post he makes.

Go fuck yourself, bitch.


----------



## rightwinger

JimBowie1958 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh yes.....more pablum for drooling conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, that is hilarious coming from an obvious fraud like you who fakes being a 'right winger' by name and lies in almost every post he makes.
> 
> Go fuck yourself, bitch.
Click to expand...


Guess what?
I don't really work in a sewer 

And you didn't die at the Alamo either


----------



## JimBowie1958

rightwinger said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh yes.....more pablum for drooling conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, that is hilarious coming from an obvious fraud like you who fakes being a 'right winger' by name and lies in almost every post he makes.
> 
> Go fuck yourself, bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess what?
> I don't really work in a sewer
> 
> And you didn't die at the Alamo either
Click to expand...


No fake, shithead.

I go by the name I do because I admire Jim Bowie, despite his faults. He was a great man, and were he standing in front of you I doubt you would talk the shit you do.

However, you are not rightwing, nor do you respect said people. You use it as a disguise which fits right in with the rest of the libtard need to fake being the racist to keep the boogeyman alive for a great many people.

Fucktard.


----------



## rightwinger

JimBowie1958 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, that is hilarious coming from an obvious fraud like you who fakes being a 'right winger' by name and lies in almost every post he makes.
> 
> Go fuck yourself, bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what?
> I don't really work in a sewer
> 
> And you didn't die at the Alamo either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No fake, shithead.
> 
> I go by the name I do because I admire Jim Bowie, despite his faults. He was a great man, and were he standing in front of you I doubt you would talk the shit you do.
> 
> However, you are not rightwing, nor do you respect said people. You use it as a disguise which fits right in with the rest of the libtard need to fake being the racist to keep the boogeyman alive for a great many people.
> 
> Fucktard.
Click to expand...


So you are a liar......you are not actually Jim Bowie
Thanks for clarifying

It's the internet......stop taking things literally


----------



## JimBowie1958

rightwinger said:


> So you are a liar......you are not actually Jim Bowie
> Thanks for clarifying
> 
> It's the internet......stop taking things literally



1. Again you lie because it is obvious, even to an idiot like you, that I am not Jim Bowie nor do I claim to be.

2. Talking in figurative terms and trying to make a joke to illustrate your points is about all you libtards have any more. You have no facts that you use in a consistent rational framework, you have no integrity or morality at all.

You only have some like you in power because of the corruption of the current system.

That is going to change.


----------



## rightwinger

JimBowie1958 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are a liar......you are not actually Jim Bowie
> Thanks for clarifying
> 
> It's the internet......stop taking things literally
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Again you lie because it is obvious, even to an idiot like you, that I am not Jim Bowie nor do I claim to be.
> 
> 2. Talking in figurative terms and trying to make a joke to illustrate your points is about all you libtards have any more. You have no facts that you use in a consistent rational framework, you have no integrity or morality at all.
> 
> You only have some like you in power because of the corruption of the current system.
> 
> That is going to change.
Click to expand...


Being rightwing is all relative isn't it?

Do you really think posters here think you died at the Alamo? Or believe I am extreme rightwing?


----------



## numan

JimBowie1958 said:


> I go by the name I do because I admire Jim Bowie, despite his faults. He was a great man, and were he standing in front of you I doubt you would talk the shit you do.


Bowie would think that both of you are insane.

And in your case, he would be right. · · 

.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Only in the Mind of a Liberal*​
August 3, 2013 by Sean Aland


When reading all the recent news headlines it appears that we are currently living in a Saturday Night Live script.  Some of the claims made by liberals and progressives are so farfetched and unbelievable you just scratch your head and ask how stupid do they think we are?  The answer is pretty darn stupid.  The following are examples of the bizarre logic from the world that progressive liberals live in. With them in control no wonder things are so messed up.

Only in the mind of a liberal should an entry level job at a fast food restaurant held by an individual with a high school degree be worthy of a living wage.

Only in the mind of a liberal should the organization conducting oversight of Obamacare and levying penalties on those who dont participate be exempt from participation.  It makes sense since those who have imposed this on the American people are exempt along with select individuals that helped get the legislation passed.

Only in the mind of a liberal would scandals that saw four Americans die in a consulate attack, the IRS targeting conservative groups, and the illegal distribution of firearmsbe referred to as phony scandals after originally denying them than openly acknowledging them as real.

...


Only in the mind of a liberal would a little Wiener involved in a sexting scandal for the second time be considered a viable Democratic candidate for anything.  He does however resemble Bill Clinton with his implementation of the 12 Ds of progressive liberal strategy Deny, Defy, Distort, Deceive, Discredit, Demonize, Distract, Discourage, Destroy, Do, Disagree, Disclose all to Delay the truth being told.

Only in the mind of a liberal would a liberal white man, feel he is the expert on black America and tell a liberal black man he doesnt know what he is talking about when it comes to the black community.

Only in the mind of a liberal would a half breed raised by a white family of privilege, be considered an authority on the black community over a black man from the ghetto who fought poverty and worked hard to become the best pediatric brain surgeon in the world.

...


At the rate these illogical thinking Democrats are running down and ruining our country, it makes you wonder  what the US will look lie by 2016, some say just another 3rd world country, But I guess it all makes sense when you consider that if Obama had a city of his own it would look like Detroit.


Read more: Only in the Mind of a Liberal... - Patriot UpdatePatriot Update


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bfgrn said:


> Figures you would follow a piece of human excrement like Mike Gallagher



Well, not everyone can be a paragon of virtue like Aljazeera Gore.....


----------



## Pogo

American_Jihad said:


> *Only in the Mind of a Liberal*​
> August 3, 2013 by Sean Aland
> 
> 
> When reading all the recent news headlines it appears that we are currently living in a Saturday Night Live script.  Some of the claims made by liberals and progressives are so farfetched and unbelievable you just scratch your head and ask how stupid do they think we are?  The answer is pretty darn stupid.  The following are examples of the bizarre logic from the world that progressive liberals live in. With them in control no wonder things are so messed up.
> 
> Only in the mind of a liberal should an entry level job at a fast food restaurant held by an individual with a high school degree be worthy of a living wage.
> 
> Only in the mind of a liberal should the organization conducting oversight of Obamacare and levying penalties on those who dont participate be exempt from participation.  It makes sense since those who have imposed this on the American people are exempt along with select individuals that helped get the legislation passed.
> 
> Only in the mind of a liberal would scandals that saw four Americans die in a consulate attack, the IRS targeting conservative groups, and the illegal distribution of firearmsbe referred to as phony scandals after originally denying them than openly acknowledging them as real.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Only in the mind of a liberal would a little Wiener involved in a sexting scandal for the second time be considered a viable Democratic candidate for anything.  He does however resemble Bill Clinton with his implementation of the 12 Ds of progressive liberal strategy Deny, Defy, Distort, Deceive, Discredit, Demonize, Distract, Discourage, Destroy, Do, Disagree, Disclose all to Delay the truth being told.
> 
> Only in the mind of a liberal would a liberal white man, feel he is the expert on black America and tell a liberal black man he doesnt know what he is talking about when it comes to the black community.
> 
> Only in the mind of a liberal would a half breed raised by a white family of privilege, be considered an authority on the black community over a black man from the ghetto who fought poverty and worked hard to become the best pediatric brain surgeon in the world.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> At the rate these illogical thinking Democrats are running down and ruining our country, it makes you wonder  what the US will look lie by 2016, some say just another 3rd world country, But I guess it all makes sense when you consider that if Obama had a city of his own it would look like Detroit.
> 
> 
> Read more: Only in the Mind of a Liberal... - Patriot UpdatePatriot Update



It's hilarious to see the word "illogical" seep through that post -- since most of these specioius examples don't even relate to politics, let alone Liberalism...

And now... Deep Thoughts... by AJ


----------



## American_Jihad

Pogo said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Only in the Mind of a Liberal&#8230;*​
> August 3, 2013 by Sean Aland
> 
> 
> When reading all the recent news headlines it appears that we are currently living in a Saturday Night Live script.  Some of the claims made by liberals and progressives are so farfetched and unbelievable you just scratch your head and ask how stupid do they think we are?  The answer is pretty darn stupid.  The following are examples of the bizarre logic from the world that progressive liberals live in. With them in control no wonder things are so messed up.
> 
> Only in the mind of a liberal should an entry level job at a fast food restaurant held by an individual with a high school degree be worthy of a living wage.
> 
> Only in the mind of a liberal should the organization conducting oversight of Obamacare and levying penalties on those who don&#8217;t participate be exempt from participation.  It makes sense since those who have imposed this on the American people are exempt along with select individuals that helped get the legislation passed.
> 
> Only in the mind of a liberal would scandals that saw four Americans die in a consulate attack, the IRS targeting conservative groups, and the illegal distribution of firearms&#8230;be referred to as phony scandals after originally denying them than openly acknowledging them as real.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Only in the mind of a liberal would a little Wiener involved in a sexting scandal for the second time be considered a viable Democratic candidate for anything.  He does however resemble Bill Clinton with his implementation of the 12 D&#8217;s of progressive liberal strategy Deny, Defy, Distort, Deceive, Discredit, Demonize, Distract, Discourage, Destroy, Do, Disagree, Disclose all to Delay the truth being told.
> 
> Only in the mind of a liberal would a liberal white man, feel he is the expert on black America and tell a liberal black man he doesn&#8217;t know what he is talking about when it comes to the black community.
> 
> Only in the mind of a liberal would a half breed raised by a white family of privilege, be considered an authority on the black community over a black man from the ghetto who fought poverty and worked hard to become the best pediatric brain surgeon in the world.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> At the rate these illogical thinking Democrats are running down and ruining our country, it makes you wonder  what the US will look lie by 2016, some say just another 3rd world country, But I guess it all makes sense when you consider that if Obama had a city of his own it would look like Detroit.
> 
> 
> Read more: Only in the Mind of a Liberal... - Patriot UpdatePatriot Update
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hilarious to see the word "illogical" seep through that post -- since most of these specioius examples don't even relate to politics, let alone Liberalism...
> 
> And now... Deep Thoughts... by AJ
Click to expand...


And I thought I'd win you over with the unicorns, let me try again...





"Here I come to save the day!"
That means that Mighty Hussein is on the way!


----------



## jasonnfree

RKMBrown said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The program is funded by paying customers of the cell phone companies.   The moochers get their cell phones for nothing, and we get to pay a higher cost for our phone service to account for their cell phones.  Government mandated redistribution at it's best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program.  It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is.  As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.
> 
> Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need.  I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help.  I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism.  I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.
> 
> We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.
> 
> /sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Charity should be voluntary.  Charity should be personal.  Charity should be for those who need it.  Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy.  When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy.  When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks.  When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all.  That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming.  Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.
Click to expand...


Why all the should be's?   Just come out and say f__k  them,  I don't want to pay taxes.  I know what's coming, your a success, invented this and that, paid more taxes than 100 liberals combined which is why your spending valuable time posting here.Your just a typical con phony and will fit right in here.


----------



## RKMBrown

jasonnfree said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program.  It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is.  As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.
> 
> Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need.  I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help.  I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism.  I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.
> 
> We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.
> 
> /sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charity should be voluntary.  Charity should be personal.  Charity should be for those who need it.  Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy.  When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy.  When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks.  When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all.  That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming.  Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why all the should be's?   Just come out and say f__k  them,  I don't want to pay taxes.  I know what's coming, your a success, invented this and that, paid more taxes than 100 liberals combined which is why your spending valuable time posting here.Your just a typical con phony and will fit right in here.
Click to expand...

I was explaining the difference between charity and government welfare.  You are free to give it a stab yourself.  Or is this thread about me?  You need to find a better hobby than leg humping. The reason I don't say I don't want to pay taxes is because I do want to fund the necessary functions of this government.  Thanks for the flattery, but really, what is with your fascination with how I spend my time?


----------



## numan

'

Some people are just obsessed with scarcity thinking.

.


----------



## RKMBrown

numan said:


> '
> 
> Some people are just obsessed with scarcity thinking.
> 
> .



Ah.. I just figured he wanted me to earn more money to put in the pot.

Me, I have tons of free time.  I'm on my surf board gliding along the waves toward the shore all the momentum I need to get there.


----------



## Ringel05

I don't hate liberals, I don't hate conservatives, I do have a strong disdain towards blind partisans who can't see past their own bias, continuously attempting to paint the other side as biased and blind........... Can everyone say hypocrite.........?


----------



## Stephanie

bripat9643 said:


> I think one fact we can all agree on is that liberals are all giant gas bags.  Almost everything they believe is horseshit, especially when it comes to what they believe about themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> A liberal is willing to recognize that there are many areas in life where there is neither right nor wrong, just a range of choices, choices which will not solve the whole of the problems, and are not good or bad, but more effective or less effective. This does not set well with conservatives, who prefer definate right and wrong.
> 
> Also, liberals accept reality far better than conservatives. They do not try to bend the real world into "the way things ought to be". That is why 'Conservatives' deny the science of AGW, in spite of all the evidence of a warming world around them, and the solid science behind the reason why. And when a major poltical party embraces this lack of recognition of reality, as the GOP has, there is no way that I can vote for them.
Click to expand...


No kidding,  they have some high opinion of themselves, go trough this board you will see they are the most intolerant of other views and the most vicious in showing their hate for others...today they called a woman, a dick... then they ask why they are hated? 

I have to go Lmao now after going through this thread......


----------



## Pogo

Ringel05 said:


> I don't hate liberals, I don't hate conservatives, I do have a strong disdain towards blind partisans who can't see past their own bias, continuously attempting to paint the other side as biased and blind........... Can everyone say hypocrite.........?



-- and it took exactly one (count 'em, 1) post to demonstrate.

That's why I left this thread.


----------



## RKMBrown

Ringel05 said:


> I don't hate liberals, I don't hate conservatives, I do have a strong disdain towards blind partisans who can't see past their own bias, continuously attempting to paint the other side as biased and blind........... Can everyone say hypocrite.........?



It's hard not to hate folks like Obama who are diametrically opposed to nearly everything you hold dear in life.


----------



## Ringel05

RKMBrown said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate liberals, I don't hate conservatives, I do have a strong disdain towards blind partisans who can't see past their own bias, continuously attempting to paint the other side as biased and blind........... Can everyone say hypocrite.........?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard not to hate folks like Obama who are diametrically opposed to nearly everything you hold dear in life.
Click to expand...


Is he or are you simply buying into the far right rhetoric?  Kinda like the liberals bought into the far left rhetoric about Bush.  Not defending either, just pointing out the obvious.  As long as the extreme wings try to control both parties we will have serious difficulty reaching a consensus on anything though that's not always a bad thing.


----------



## PixieStix

Pogo said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate liberals, I don't hate conservatives, I do have a strong disdain towards blind partisans who can't see past their own bias, continuously attempting to paint the other side as biased and blind........... Can everyone say hypocrite.........?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- and it took exactly one (count 'em, 1) post to demonstrate.
> 
> That's why I left this thread.
Click to expand...


That is why I rarely post anything in politics


----------



## Pogo

Ringel05 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate liberals, I don't hate conservatives, I do have a strong disdain towards blind partisans who can't see past their own bias, continuously attempting to paint the other side as biased and blind........... Can everyone say hypocrite.........?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard not to hate folks like Obama who are diametrically opposed to nearly everything you hold dear in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is he or are you simply buying into the far right rhetoric?  Kinda like the liberals bought into the far left rhetoric about Bush.  Not defending either, just pointing out the obvious.  As long as the extreme wings try to control both parties we will have serious difficulty reaching a consensus on anything though that's not always a bad thing.
Click to expand...


It's pretty safe to say any time you find your post language using absolutes and extremes, you're probably playing outside the lines.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Pogo said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard not to hate folks like Obama who are diametrically opposed to nearly everything you hold dear in life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is he or are you simply buying into the far right rhetoric?  Kinda like the liberals bought into the far left rhetoric about Bush.  Not defending either, just pointing out the obvious.  As long as the extreme wings try to control both parties we will have serious difficulty reaching a consensus on anything though that's not always a bad thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's pretty safe to say any time you find your post language using absolutes and extremes, you're probably playing outside the lines.
Click to expand...


Its also pretty safe to say that once one identifies a person like you as a libtard, you are constantly lying, twisting facts and shitting all over our nation, its culture and your own self, stupid fuck.

Ringel, Pogo is a troll and a fraud. He pretends to be a centrist moderate most of the time, but he never fails to rush to the defense of his commie buddies. He could not care less about being fair or acurate.


----------



## Ringel05

JimBowie1958 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is he or are you simply buying into the far right rhetoric?  Kinda like the liberals bought into the far left rhetoric about Bush.  Not defending either, just pointing out the obvious.  As long as the extreme wings try to control both parties we will have serious difficulty reaching a consensus on anything though that's not always a bad thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty safe to say any time you find your post language using absolutes and extremes, you're probably playing outside the lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its also pretty safe to say that once one identifies a person like you as a libtard, you are constantly lying, twisting facts and shitting all over our nation, its culture and your own self, stupid fuck.
> 
> Ringel, Pogo is a troll and a fraud. He pretends to be a centrist moderate most of the time, but he never fails to rush to the defense of his commie buddies. He could not care less about being fair or acurate.
Click to expand...

I read some of Pogo's postings, I don't necessarily agree with you.  Pogo leans left, he has some positions that are farther left and some that are considered conservative like I have some positions that are considered far right and some that are considered liberal.  Centrists generally lean right or left and often hold some views that may be considered extreme by the opposite side.  Have you considered, given the tone of you response to me concerning Pogo, that maybe you're pretty far right and fall into that blind partisan category?  Just a thought. 
Oh and the far left probably talk about me the way you're talking about Pogo but to be honest with myself I do tend to go after the radical liberals more than I go after the reactionary right though I'm working on that.


----------



## Pogo

Ringel05 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty safe to say any time you find your post language using absolutes and extremes, you're probably playing outside the lines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its also pretty safe to say that once one identifies a person like you as a libtard, you are constantly lying, twisting facts and shitting all over our nation, its culture and your own self, stupid fuck.
> 
> Ringel, Pogo is a troll and a fraud. He pretends to be a centrist moderate most of the time, but he never fails to rush to the defense of his commie buddies. He could not care less about being fair or acurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read some of Pogo's postings, I don't necessarily agree with you.  Pogo leans left, he has some positions that are farther left and some that are considered conservative like I have some positions that are considered far right and some that are considered liberal.  Centrists generally lean right or left and often hold some views that may be considered extreme by the opposite side.  Have you considered, given the tone of you response to me concerning Pogo, that maybe you're pretty far right and fall into that blind partisan category?  Just a thought.
> Oh and the far left probably talk about me the way you're talking about Pogo but to be honest with myself I do tend to go after the radical liberals more than I go after the reactionary right though I'm working on that.
Click to expand...


I think Bowie's post speaks for itself as demonstration of what we're saying.  It's like playing the straight man and leaving openings: when everything one posts is met with "you flaming fucktard" instead of consideration of any points, then one is automatically defined as a "libtard" or "fascist" "shitting all over our nation".  That ain't debate; it's a tantrum.

The folly comes in absolutist thinking; the dichotomy of "us" vs. "them" and the obsession with labels.  All that does is slam the door shut.


----------



## Stephanie

> A liberal is willing to recognize that there are many areas in life where there is neither right nor wrong, just a range of choices, choices which will not solve the whole of the problems, and are not good or bad, but more effective or less effective. This does not set well with conservatives, who prefer definate right and wrong.
> 
> Also, liberals accept reality far better than conservatives. They do not try to bend the real world into "the way things ought to be". That is why 'Conservatives' deny the science of AGW, in spite of all the evidence of a warming world around them, and the solid science behind the reason why. And when a major poltical party embraces this lack of recognition of reality, as the GOP has, there is no way that I can vote for them.



This right here screams.... we are superior over all other's and only tolerate others, occasionally...

what's not to love about that..good gawd


----------



## Dragonlady

Stephanie said:


> This right here screams.... we are superior over all other's and only tolerate others, occasionally...
> 
> what's not to love about that..good gawd



Bullshit.  It says that the poster is unsure of a lot of things, unlike conservatives who are certain they're right.  And youo just proved the point.

Liberals aren't smug and superior.  They're riddled with doubt.  You keep missing that part, or you're being wilfully blind.

I see very little connection between what the conservatives SAY they believe in, and what they vote for.


----------



## Stephanie

Dragonlady said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This right here screams.... we are superior over all other's and only tolerate others, occasionally...
> 
> what's not to love about that..good gawd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It says that the poster is unsure of a lot of things, unlike conservatives who are certain they're right.  And youo just proved the point.
> 
> Liberals aren't smug and superior.  They're riddled with doubt.  You keep missing that part, or you're being wilfully blind.
> 
> I see very little connection between what the conservatives SAY they believe in, and what they vote for.
Click to expand...


you see it your way, I see it mine
not arguing over it...


----------



## Foxfyre

Ringel05 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty safe to say any time you find your post language using absolutes and extremes, you're probably playing outside the lines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its also pretty safe to say that once one identifies a person like you as a libtard, you are constantly lying, twisting facts and shitting all over our nation, its culture and your own self, stupid fuck.
> 
> Ringel, Pogo is a troll and a fraud. He pretends to be a centrist moderate most of the time, but he never fails to rush to the defense of his commie buddies. He could not care less about being fair or acurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read some of Pogo's postings, I don't necessarily agree with you.  Pogo leans left, he has some positions that are farther left and some that are considered conservative like I have some positions that are considered far right and some that are considered liberal.  Centrists generally lean right or left and often hold some views that may be considered extreme by the opposite side.  Have you considered, given the tone of you response to me concerning Pogo, that maybe you're pretty far right and fall into that blind partisan category?  Just a thought.
> Oh and the far left probably talk about me the way you're talking about Pogo but to be honest with myself I do tend to go after the radical liberals more than I go after the reactionary right though I'm working on that.
Click to expand...


Absolutely.  Pogo sometimes drives me absolutely nuts because he THINKS like a modern American liberal which is extremely frustrating to the more pragmatic modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka libertarian.  But even though he is usually wrong----he is civil with those who are civil, and he can at least articulate an argument which most modern liberals cannot.  At least he thinks for himself, doesn't obfusicate and detract with huge blocks of copied and pasted nonsense, and he doesn't parrot the assigned talking points of the Left--Bush sucks.  Republicans suck.   Conservatives suck.  Anybody right of center is hateful, greedy, selfish, and wants to dirty all the water, air, and soil on the planet and throw granny out on the street and dismantle all regulation, yadda yadda.

Those who do that are what give modern liberalism a bad name.  But then debate via extremism from either the left or right diminishes the quality of USMB.   But I would welcome any number of folks like Pogo to the forum.


----------



## American_Jihad

numan said:


> '
> 
> Some people are just obsessed with scarcity thinking.
> 
> .



We Know...

Scarcity is the fundamental economic problem of having seemingly unlimited human wants and needs in a world of limited resources.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its also pretty safe to say that once one identifies a person like you as a libtard, you are constantly lying, twisting facts and shitting all over our nation, its culture and your own self, stupid fuck.
> 
> Ringel, Pogo is a troll and a fraud. He pretends to be a centrist moderate most of the time, but he never fails to rush to the defense of his commie buddies. He could not care less about being fair or acurate.
> 
> 
> 
> I read some of Pogo's postings, I don't necessarily agree with you.  Pogo leans left, he has some positions that are farther left and some that are considered conservative like I have some positions that are considered far right and some that are considered liberal.  Centrists generally lean right or left and often hold some views that may be considered extreme by the opposite side.  Have you considered, given the tone of you response to me concerning Pogo, that maybe you're pretty far right and fall into that blind partisan category?  Just a thought.
> Oh and the far left probably talk about me the way you're talking about Pogo but to be honest with myself I do tend to go after the radical liberals more than I go after the reactionary right though I'm working on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  Pogo sometimes drives me absolutely nuts because he THINKS like a modern American liberal which is extremely frustrating to the more pragmatic modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka libertarian.  But even though he is usually wrong----he is civil with those who are civil, and he can at least articulate an argument which most modern liberals cannot.  At least he thinks for himself, doesn't obfusicate and detract with huge blocks of copied and pasted nonsense, and he doesn't parrot the assigned talking points of the Left--Bush sucks.  Republicans suck.   Conservatives suck.  Anybody right of center is hateful, greedy, selfish, and wants to dirty all the water, air, and soil on the planet and throw granny out on the street and dismantle all regulation, yadda yadda.
> 
> Those who do that are what give modern liberalism a bad name.  But then debate via extremism from either the left or right diminishes the quality of USMB.   But I would welcome any number of folks like Pogo to the forum.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah??  Well takes one to know one 

I'm not going to stand here and be described like this.  Let me get... comfortable... (settles in chair).... 

Your check is in the mail (slightly less than we agreed on, you know, until we settle on what the word _Liberal _means).
But your words are too kind.  I can only hope to prove worthy of them.

Love ya Foxy.


----------



## numan

RKMBrown said:


> It's hard not to hate folks like Obama who are diametrically opposed to nearly everything you hold dear in life.


It's also hard not to hate an incarnation of satanic evil like George W. Bush -- who truly is an enemy to everything that is decent in human life.





.


----------



## SillyWabbit

numan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard not to hate folks like Obama who are diametrically opposed to nearly everything you hold dear in life.
> 
> 
> 
> It's also hard not to hate an incarnation of satanic evil like George W. Bush -- who truly is an enemy to everything that is decent in human life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


This guy/gal/thing stoul my sole. It won't give it back. Damn it/she/they to everlasting Hell!


----------



## Pogo

Hey Numan, guess what...

You're not helping.


----------



## numan

'

My purpose is neither to help or hinder, but merely to speak the truth, as I see it.

.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its also pretty safe to say that once one identifies a person like you as a libtard, you are constantly lying, twisting facts and shitting all over our nation, its culture and your own self, stupid fuck.
> 
> Ringel, Pogo is a troll and a fraud. He pretends to be a centrist moderate most of the time, but he never fails to rush to the defense of his commie buddies. He could not care less about being fair or acurate.
> 
> 
> 
> I read some of Pogo's postings, I don't necessarily agree with you.  Pogo leans left, he has some positions that are farther left and some that are considered conservative like I have some positions that are considered far right and some that are considered liberal.  Centrists generally lean right or left and often hold some views that may be considered extreme by the opposite side.  Have you considered, given the tone of you response to me concerning Pogo, that maybe you're pretty far right and fall into that blind partisan category?  Just a thought.
> Oh and the far left probably talk about me the way you're talking about Pogo but to be honest with myself I do tend to go after the radical liberals more than I go after the reactionary right though I'm working on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  Pogo sometimes drives me absolutely nuts because he THINKS like a modern American liberal which is extremely frustrating to the more pragmatic modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka libertarian.  But even though he is usually wrong----he is civil with those who are civil, and he can at least articulate an argument which most modern liberals cannot.  At least he thinks for himself, doesn't obfusicate and detract with huge blocks of copied and pasted nonsense, and he doesn't parrot the assigned talking points of the Left--Bush sucks.  Republicans suck.   Conservatives suck.  Anybody right of center is hateful, greedy, selfish, and wants to dirty all the water, air, and soil on the planet and throw granny out on the street and dismantle all regulation, yadda yadda.
> 
> Those who do that are what give modern liberalism a bad name.  But then debate via extremism from either the left or right diminishes the quality of USMB.   But I would welcome any number of folks like Pogo to the forum.
Click to expand...


This post should be in the dictionary as the definition of narcissism and haughty.

I suggest you actually pay attention to what conservatives and tea partiers are trying to DO in Washington, like dismantle the EPA and let polluters off the hook, cut life saving programs for the poor and allow Wall Street barracudas to feed on We, the People.

You are a perfect example of what conservatism is, and why conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.


----------



## numan

Bfgrn said:


> I suggest you actually pay attention to what conservatives and tea partiers are trying to DO in Washington, like dismantle the EPA and let polluters off the hook, cut life saving programs for the poor and allow Wall Street barracudas to feed on We, the People.
> 
> You are a perfect example of what conservatism is, and why conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.


Sadly, that is what the once respectable philosophy of conservatism has turned into -- once the mindless American people, so ably abetted by their swindling rulers, took it into their dirty paws.

.


----------



## Bfgrn

numan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you actually pay attention to what conservatives and tea partiers are trying to DO in Washington, like dismantle the EPA and let polluters off the hook, cut life saving programs for the poor and allow Wall Street barracudas to feed on We, the People.
> 
> You are a perfect example of what conservatism is, and why conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, that is what the once respectable philosophy of conservatism has turned into -- once the mindless American people, so ably abetted by their swindling rulers, took it into their dirty paws.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You are wrong. Conservatism has never been worthy of respect. They are the scourge of mankind. It's the manifestation of authoritarian parenting that metastasizes in adults.


----------



## Stephanie

> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you actually pay attention to what conservatives and tea partiers are trying to DO in Washington, like dismantle the EPA and let polluters off the hook, cut life saving programs for the poor and allow Wall Street barracudas to feed on We, the People.
> 
> You are a perfect example of what conservatism is, and why conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, that is what the once respectable philosophy of conservatism has turned into -- once the mindless American people, so ably abetted by their swindling rulers, took it into their dirty paws.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong. Conservatism has never been worthy of respect. They are the scourge of mankind. *It's the manifestation of authoritarian parenting that metastasizes in adults.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> projection is strong with this one...nice try but you just described you LIBERALS
Click to expand...


----------



## Moonglow

As far as I am concerned posting on this site is that too many people are filled with hate and many to the point of oral frothiness. It is an emotional disturbance for many posters here and it shows their true character, not the one used on the street or around other people.
There is no perfect human or political party in the world, everyone suffers the same fates as every other human and we all end up the same, dead. Instead of building ideas many in life and on this site seem to want to conquer and destroy. Well, humans will never make it to a higher level of existence with this attitude.


----------



## Pogo

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read some of Pogo's postings, I don't necessarily agree with you.  Pogo leans left, he has some positions that are farther left and some that are considered conservative like I have some positions that are considered far right and some that are considered liberal.  Centrists generally lean right or left and often hold some views that may be considered extreme by the opposite side.  Have you considered, given the tone of you response to me concerning Pogo, that maybe you're pretty far right and fall into that blind partisan category?  Just a thought.
> Oh and the far left probably talk about me the way you're talking about Pogo but to be honest with myself I do tend to go after the radical liberals more than I go after the reactionary right though I'm working on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  Pogo sometimes drives me absolutely nuts because he THINKS like a modern American liberal which is extremely frustrating to the more pragmatic modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka libertarian.  But even though he is usually wrong----he is civil with those who are civil, and he can at least articulate an argument which most modern liberals cannot.  At least he thinks for himself, doesn't obfusicate and detract with huge blocks of copied and pasted nonsense, and he doesn't parrot the assigned talking points of the Left--Bush sucks.  Republicans suck.   Conservatives suck.  Anybody right of center is hateful, greedy, selfish, and wants to dirty all the water, air, and soil on the planet and throw granny out on the street and dismantle all regulation, yadda yadda.
> 
> Those who do that are what give modern liberalism a bad name.  But then debate via extremism from either the left or right diminishes the quality of USMB.   But I would welcome any number of folks like Pogo to the forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This post should be in the dictionary as the definition of *narcissism and haughty*.
> 
> I suggest you actually pay attention to what conservatives and tea partiers are trying to DO in Washington, like dismantle the EPA and let polluters off the hook, cut life saving programs for the poor and allow Wall Street barracudas to feed on We, the People.
> 
> You are a perfect example of what conservatism is, and why conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
Click to expand...


 .......  ........ 

OK I really have to call this one out.  Bfgrn, see post 2060; same applies to you.

You've got vital and well-thought-out points to make, but this my friend isn't one of them.  Within the context of what we're discussing here, this post is bullshit.  Foxy's at least extending a hand of respect here even if we still have ideological variances.  That's a step toward open exchange.  But here you seem to be pushing back toward polarization and division, and that just runs directly counter to the sentiment expressed.

We may not get there with the present thread; we may never get there at all.  But let's not shoot ourselves in the proverbial foot and slam the door just because that's the way we've always done it.  Nobody benefits when we push each other into corners.  That's just wallowing in the same old message board shit.  It's not good enough.

IMHO we all need to get off the addiction to the second personal pronoun and get onto the issues.

Sorry, this has to be said.

(/offtopic / rant off)

(for now  )


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  Pogo sometimes drives me absolutely nuts because he THINKS like a modern American liberal which is extremely frustrating to the more pragmatic modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka libertarian.  But even though he is usually wrong----he is civil with those who are civil, and he can at least articulate an argument which most modern liberals cannot.  At least he thinks for himself, doesn't obfusicate and detract with huge blocks of copied and pasted nonsense, and he doesn't parrot the assigned talking points of the Left--Bush sucks.  Republicans suck.   Conservatives suck.  Anybody right of center is hateful, greedy, selfish, and wants to dirty all the water, air, and soil on the planet and throw granny out on the street and dismantle all regulation, yadda yadda.
> 
> Those who do that are what give modern liberalism a bad name.  But then debate via extremism from either the left or right diminishes the quality of USMB.   But I would welcome any number of folks like Pogo to the forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post should be in the dictionary as the definition of *narcissism and haughty*.
> 
> I suggest you actually pay attention to what conservatives and tea partiers are trying to DO in Washington, like dismantle the EPA and let polluters off the hook, cut life saving programs for the poor and allow Wall Street barracudas to feed on We, the People.
> 
> You are a perfect example of what conservatism is, and why conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .......  ........
> 
> OK I really have to call this one out.  Bfgrn, see post 2060; same applies to you.
> 
> You've got vital and well-thought-out points to make, but this my friend isn't one of them.  Within the context of what we're discussing here, this post is bullshit.  Foxy's at least extending a hand of respect here even if we still have ideological variances.  That's a step toward open exchange.  But here you seem to be pushing back toward polarization and division, and that just runs directly counter to the sentiment expressed.
> 
> We may not get there with the present thread; we may never get there at all.  But let's not shoot ourselves in the proverbial foot and slam the door just because that's the way we've always done it.  Nobody benefits when we push each other into corners.  That's just wallowing in the same old message board shit.  It's not good enough.
> 
> IMHO we all need to get off the addiction to the second personal pronoun and get onto the issues.
> 
> Sorry, this has to be said.
> 
> (/offtopic / rant off)
> 
> (for now  )
Click to expand...


Damn, I still have to spread some rep before I can rep this one. But it only goes to show that even a stopped clock can be right twice a day.    You definitely are not wrong here, you are living proof that a dedicated liberal can look past ideology to cause and effect, and I thank you for that.


----------



## Bfgrn

Stephanie said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. Conservatism has never been worthy of respect. They are the scourge of mankind. *It's the manifestation of authoritarian parenting that metastasizes in adults.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> projection is strong with this one...nice try but you just described you LIBERALS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Steph, liberals can't be bleeding hearts, weaklings, doves and peace-niks AND authoritarians.
> 
> Authoritarianism is wholly owned by the right.
> 
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
Click to expand...


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> projection is strong with this one...nice try but you just described you LIBERALS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Steph, liberals can't be bleeding hearts, weaklings, doves and peace-niks AND authoritarians.
> 
> Authoritarianism is wholly owned by the right.
> 
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define authoritarian.  Then contrast that with libertarian.  Then explain to me how no socialists on the left are authoritarian as they command our forces to kill citizens abroad, kill American citizens without due process, force social programs like Obama Care down our throat and FINE us if we don't agree to sign up...
> 
> How can the left be for taking away so many liberties and not be authoritarian at the same time?
Click to expand...


----------



## Bfgrn

Pogo said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  Pogo sometimes drives me absolutely nuts because he THINKS like a modern American liberal which is extremely frustrating to the more pragmatic modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka libertarian.  But even though he is usually wrong----he is civil with those who are civil, and he can at least articulate an argument which most modern liberals cannot.  At least he thinks for himself, doesn't obfusicate and detract with huge blocks of copied and pasted nonsense, and he doesn't parrot the assigned talking points of the Left--Bush sucks.  Republicans suck.   Conservatives suck.  Anybody right of center is hateful, greedy, selfish, and wants to dirty all the water, air, and soil on the planet and throw granny out on the street and dismantle all regulation, yadda yadda.
> 
> Those who do that are what give modern liberalism a bad name.  But then debate via extremism from either the left or right diminishes the quality of USMB.   But I would welcome any number of folks like Pogo to the forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post should be in the dictionary as the definition of *narcissism and haughty*.
> 
> I suggest you actually pay attention to what conservatives and tea partiers are trying to DO in Washington, like dismantle the EPA and let polluters off the hook, cut life saving programs for the poor and allow Wall Street barracudas to feed on We, the People.
> 
> You are a perfect example of what conservatism is, and why conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .......  ........
> 
> OK I really have to call this one out.  Bfgrn, see post 2060; same applies to you.
> 
> You've got vital and well-thought-out points to make, but this my friend isn't one of them.  Within the context of what we're discussing here, this post is bullshit.  Foxy's at least extending a hand of respect here even if we still have ideological variances.  That's a step toward open exchange.  But here you seem to be pushing back toward polarization and division, and that just runs directly counter to the sentiment expressed.
> 
> We may not get there with the present thread; we may never get there at all.  But let's not shoot ourselves in the proverbial foot and slam the door just because that's the way we've always done it.  Nobody benefits when we push each other into corners.  That's just wallowing in the same old message board shit.  It's not good enough.
> 
> IMHO we all need to get off the addiction to the second personal pronoun and get onto the issues.
> 
> Sorry, this has to be said.
> 
> (/offtopic / rant off)
> 
> (for now  )
Click to expand...


Well thank you for showing that a few compliments sent your way can deceive you. READ what the fuck she posts day in and day out, then THINK THROUGH what the consequences would be if those ideas were carried out to completion. It will lead to some group of people being thrown in the river so they can either instantly swim or PERISH. It is the very core of conservatism...people only learn by being punished.

I am a Kennedy liberal, I don't back down from always putting people first, especially the least among us. 

Now, mind your OWN business...


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> I am a Kennedy liberal, I don't back down from always putting people first, especially the least among us.
> 
> Now, mind your OWN business...



You mean the people on the left, correct?  The people on the right you don't have any problem at all putting them last, correct?


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a Kennedy liberal, I don't back down from always putting people first, especially the least among us.
> 
> Now, mind your OWN business...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the people on the left, correct?  The people on the right you don't have any problem at all putting them last, correct?
Click to expand...


I never side with the executioners. If you want to use the only tool conservatives learned, punishment, then I am your worst nightmare. I will fight you scum bags tooth and nail.

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus


----------



## numan

'
America !! Divided We Fall !!

I hope you are all enjoying hanging separately?

.


----------



## Moonglow

numan said:


> '
> America !! Divided We Fall !!
> 
> I hope you are all enjoying hanging separately?
> 
> .



no shit, that's has been the US's weakness all along.


----------



## Pogo

Bfgrn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post should be in the dictionary as the definition of *narcissism and haughty*.
> 
> I suggest you actually pay attention to what conservatives and tea partiers are trying to DO in Washington, like dismantle the EPA and let polluters off the hook, cut life saving programs for the poor and allow Wall Street barracudas to feed on We, the People.
> 
> You are a perfect example of what conservatism is, and why conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .......  ........
> 
> OK I really have to call this one out.  Bfgrn, see post 2060; same applies to you.
> 
> You've got vital and well-thought-out points to make, but this my friend isn't one of them.  Within the context of what we're discussing here, this post is bullshit.  Foxy's at least extending a hand of respect here even if we still have ideological variances.  That's a step toward open exchange.  But here you seem to be pushing back toward polarization and division, and that just runs directly counter to the sentiment expressed.
> 
> We may not get there with the present thread; we may never get there at all.  But let's not shoot ourselves in the proverbial foot and slam the door just because that's the way we've always done it.  Nobody benefits when we push each other into corners.  That's just wallowing in the same old message board shit.  It's not good enough.
> 
> IMHO we all need to get off the addiction to the second personal pronoun and get onto the issues.
> 
> Sorry, this has to be said.
> 
> (/offtopic / rant off)
> 
> (for now  )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thank you for showing that a few compliments sent your way can deceive you. READ what the fuck she posts day in and day out, then THINK THROUGH what the consequences would be if those ideas were carried out to completion. It will lead to some group of people being thrown in the river so they can either instantly swim or PERISH. It is the very core of conservatism...people only learn by being punished.
> 
> I am a Kennedy liberal, I don't back down from always putting people first, especially the least among us.
> 
> Now, mind your OWN business...
Click to expand...


Oh I'm well familiar with what she posts day by day; I've tangled with Foxy from near the beginning of the time I got here.  Even now she's referring to me as a "stopped clock" (she'll hear about that).  And I'm aware she's as obdurate as they come; I'm not blind.

Here's what you're missing.

When your adversary holds out an olive branch, however lightly, you don't respond by biting her hand.  That's classless.  If that's your approach, go with it, and I have no doubt you'll ultimately get absolutely nowhere with your points.  That's what happens when you back people into a corner.  You know this as well as I; we get this crap all the time being called "libtards" and "Obamabots" and such.  It puts the adversary on the defensive.  It baits them into overstepping their own beliefs, just because they're being attacked.  That accomplishes nothing.

But respond with a little grace, and your point may still get nowhere but at least you'll be listened to.  And that's a start.

... that is, _if_ our objective is to be heard.  Because if that's not our objective, then all we do here is swim in a soup of self-indulgence.



I can't help recalling a fairy tale from childhood -- the Sun and the Wind were arguing over who was more powerful.  The Sun says, "see that man down there?  I can make him take his coat off.  Can you do that?"

"Sure" says the Wind.  "I can blow it off with my great strength".  And he blew, and blew, and blew harder, but the man only clutched his coat tighter and took shelter.

So the Sun came in and warmed things up with benevolent rays, the man got warmed up, and took off his coat.

Moral: an understanding grok-approach will usually work better than simply trying to blow things away with brute force.

Or the short version:
Lighten up.  Damn.


----------



## Moonglow

many here have no grace.


----------



## Bfgrn

Pogo said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......  ........
> 
> OK I really have to call this one out.  Bfgrn, see post 2060; same applies to you.
> 
> You've got vital and well-thought-out points to make, but this my friend isn't one of them.  Within the context of what we're discussing here, this post is bullshit.  Foxy's at least extending a hand of respect here even if we still have ideological variances.  That's a step toward open exchange.  But here you seem to be pushing back toward polarization and division, and that just runs directly counter to the sentiment expressed.
> 
> We may not get there with the present thread; we may never get there at all.  But let's not shoot ourselves in the proverbial foot and slam the door just because that's the way we've always done it.  Nobody benefits when we push each other into corners.  That's just wallowing in the same old message board shit.  It's not good enough.
> 
> IMHO we all need to get off the addiction to the second personal pronoun and get onto the issues.
> 
> Sorry, this has to be said.
> 
> (/offtopic / rant off)
> 
> (for now  )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thank you for showing that a few compliments sent your way can deceive you. READ what the fuck she posts day in and day out, then THINK THROUGH what the consequences would be if those ideas were carried out to completion. It will lead to some group of people being thrown in the river so they can either instantly swim or PERISH. It is the very core of conservatism...people only learn by being punished.
> 
> I am a Kennedy liberal, I don't back down from always putting people first, especially the least among us.
> 
> Now, mind your OWN business...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I'm well familiar with what she posts day by day; I've tangled with Foxy from near the beginning of the time I got here.  Even now she's referring to me as a "stopped clock" (she'll hear about that).  And I'm aware she's as obdurate as they come; I'm not blind.
> 
> Here's what you're missing.
> 
> When your adversary holds out an olive branch, however lightly, you don't respond by biting her hand.  That's classless.  If that's your approach, go with it, and I have no doubt you'll ultimately get absolutely nowhere with your points.  That's what happens when you back people into a corner.  You know this as well as I; we get this crap all the time being called "libtards" and "Obamabots" and such.  It puts the adversary on the defensive.  It baits them into overstepping their own beliefs, just because they're being attacked.  That accomplishes nothing.
> 
> But respond with a little grace, and your point may still get nowhere but at least you'll be listened to.  And that's a start.
> 
> ... that is, _if_ our objective is to be heard.  Because if that's not our objective, then all we do here is swim in a soup of self-indulgence.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help recalling a fairy tale from childhood -- the Sun and the Wind were arguing over who was more powerful.  The Sun says, "see that man down there?  I can make him take his coat off.  Can you do that?"
> 
> "Sure" says the Wind.  "I can blow it off with my great strength".  And he blew, and blew, and blew harder, but the man only clutched his coat tighter and took shelter.
> 
> So the Sun came in and warmed things up with benevolent rays, the man got warmed up, and took off his coat.
> 
> Moral: an understanding grok-approach will usually work better than simply trying to blow things away with brute force.
> 
> Or the short version:
> Lighten up.  Damn.
Click to expand...


Maybe you need to learn the difference between an olive branch and a pat on the head.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a Kennedy liberal, I don't back down from always putting people first, especially the least among us.
> 
> Now, mind your OWN business...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the people on the left, correct?  The people on the right you don't have any problem at all putting them last, correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never side with the executioners. If you want to use the only tool conservatives learned, punishment, then I am your worst nightmare. I will fight you scum bags tooth and nail.
> 
> "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
> Albert Camus
Click to expand...


So everyone is either with you or against you. There is no room in your world for anyone who does not worship the ground you walk on.  Basically you see yourself as a god among men. That about sum up your personal viewpoint on life?


----------



## Stephanie

RKMBrown said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the people on the left, correct?  The people on the right you don't have any problem at all putting them last, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never side with the executioners. If you want to use the only tool conservatives learned, punishment, then I am your worst nightmare. I will fight you scum bags tooth and nail.
> 
> "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
> Albert Camus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So everyone is either with you or against you. There is no room in your world for anyone who does not worship the ground you walk on.  Basically you see yourself as a god among men. That about sum up your personal viewpoint on life?
Click to expand...


you summed it up right on the money


----------



## KevinWestern

Bfgrn said:


> I never side with the executioners. If you want to use the only tool conservatives learned, punishment, then I am your worst nightmare. I will fight you scum bags tooth and nail.
> 
> "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
> Albert Camus



There are executioners on both sides of the political spectrum. Bush was one, and so is Obama.

Change will come when real people begin banding together in real, organic gatherings. We must not hate each other, as that will surely be our downfall.


----------



## Foxfyre

KevinWestern said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never side with the executioners. If you want to use the only tool conservatives learned, punishment, then I am your worst nightmare. I will fight you scum bags tooth and nail.
> 
> "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
> Albert Camus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are executioners on both sides of the political spectrum. Bush was one, and so is Obama.
> 
> Change will come when real people begin banding together in real, organic gatherings. We must not hate each other, as that will surely be our downfall.
Click to expand...


I think though that the definition of 'executioner' is pretty different in the two administrations.  However ill advised or counter productive it might have been, George W. Bush's infamous enemies list included such targets as rogue terrorist nations, economic bullies, and "islamofacist extremists intent on destroying us."

Barack Obama doesn't talk much about terrorist nations, economic bullies, or Muslim extremists except for whatever part we might have played in making them mad at us.  His enemy list seems to be anybody running for office against Democrats (especially him), anybody who is successful in business but hasn't contributed to his campaigns, any person who gains media attention criticizing his policies, members of the media who refuse to be his personal advocates, conservative groups and organizations, and Republicans.

Just another reason liberalism is out of favor with freedom loving people.   

But again I don't hate liberals, even when they accuse me of calling them a stopped clock which I didn't.  At least in that case.    As Pogo said, if we can't even have a civil conversation re our differences, how do we ever get to cooperation on concepts important to us all?    But I do hate the liberalism that proclaims itself to be superior to all others but refuses to acknowledge or even discuss the unintended consequences it creates.


----------



## KevinWestern

Foxfyre said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never side with the executioners. If you want to use the only tool conservatives learned, punishment, then I am your worst nightmare. I will fight you scum bags tooth and nail.
> 
> "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
> Albert Camus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are executioners on both sides of the political spectrum. Bush was one, and so is Obama.
> 
> Change will come when real people begin banding together in real, organic gatherings. We must not hate each other, as that will surely be our downfall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think though that the definition of 'executioner' is pretty different in the two administrations.  However ill advised or counter productive it might have been, George W. Bush's infamous enemies list included such targets as rogue terrorist nations, economic bullies, and "islamofacist extremists intent on destroying us."
> 
> Barack Obama doesn't talk much about terrorist nations, economic bullies, or Muslim extremists except for whatever part we might have played in making them mad at us.  His enemy list seems to be anybody running for office against Democrats (especially him), anybody who is successful in business but hasn't contributed to his campaigns, any person who gains media attention criticizing his policies, members of the media who refuse to be his personal advocates, conservative groups and organizations, and Republicans.
> 
> Just another reason liberalism is out of favor with freedom loving people.
> 
> But again I don't hate liberals, even when they accuse me of calling them a stopped clock which I didn't.  At least in that case.    As Pogo said, if we can't even have a civil conversation re our differences, how do we ever get to cooperation on concepts important to us all?    But I do hate the liberalism that proclaims itself to be superior to all others but refuses to acknowledge or even discuss the unintended consequences it creates.
Click to expand...


I can agree with a lot of that.


----------



## Foxfyre

KevinWestern said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are executioners on both sides of the political spectrum. Bush was one, and so is Obama.
> 
> Change will come when real people begin banding together in real, organic gatherings. We must not hate each other, as that will surely be our downfall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think though that the definition of 'executioner' is pretty different in the two administrations.  However ill advised or counter productive it might have been, George W. Bush's infamous enemies list included such targets as rogue terrorist nations, economic bullies, and "islamofacist extremists intent on destroying us."
> 
> Barack Obama doesn't talk much about terrorist nations, economic bullies, or Muslim extremists except for whatever part we might have played in making them mad at us.  His enemy list seems to be anybody running for office against Democrats (especially him), anybody who is successful in business but hasn't contributed to his campaigns, any person who gains media attention criticizing his policies, members of the media who refuse to be his personal advocates, conservative groups and organizations, and Republicans.
> 
> Just another reason liberalism is out of favor with freedom loving people.
> 
> But again I don't hate liberals, even when they accuse me of calling them a stopped clock which I didn't.  At least in that case.    As Pogo said, if we can't even have a civil conversation re our differences, how do we ever get to cooperation on concepts important to us all?    But I do hate the liberalism that proclaims itself to be superior to all others but refuses to acknowledge or even discuss the unintended consequences it creates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can agree with a lot of that.
Click to expand...


Well if you had any sense, you would agree with all of it.  (Just kidding )


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the people on the left, correct?  The people on the right you don't have any problem at all putting them last, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never side with the executioners. If you want to use the only tool conservatives learned, punishment, then I am your worst nightmare. I will fight you scum bags tooth and nail.
> 
> "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
> Albert Camus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So everyone is either with you or against you. There is no room in your world for anyone who does not worship the ground you walk on.  Basically you see yourself as a god among men. That about sum up your personal viewpoint on life?
Click to expand...


Projection identified. Nice try at twisting what I said into some evil. 

I always put people first, that is the core of liberalism. Especially the least among us, the young, the old, the disabled and the poor. If you cause harm to people either directly or through some sick ideology that creates sick policies based of social Darwinism, then you are one of the executioners. I never side with the executioners.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never side with the executioners. If you want to use the only tool conservatives learned, punishment, then I am your worst nightmare. I will fight you scum bags tooth and nail.
> 
> "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
> Albert Camus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So everyone is either with you or against you. There is no room in your world for anyone who does not worship the ground you walk on.  Basically you see yourself as a god among men. That about sum up your personal viewpoint on life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Projection identified. Nice try at twisting what I said into some evil.
> 
> I always put people first, that is the core of liberalism. Especially the least among us, the young, the old, the disabled and the poor. If you cause harm to people either directly or through some sick ideology that creates sick policies based of social Darwinism, then you are one of the executioners. I never side with the executioners.
> 
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Click to expand...


Modern liberals have been pushing vile despicable social policies of redistributing wealth for decades.  There is no excuse for it.  Hand ups work hand outs do not work.  Conservatives are in favor of hand ups not hand outs.  You are therefore, evil.  Satan's spawn.


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So everyone is either with you or against you. There is no room in your world for anyone who does not worship the ground you walk on.  Basically you see yourself as a god among men. That about sum up your personal viewpoint on life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projection identified. Nice try at twisting what I said into some evil.
> 
> I always put people first, that is the core of liberalism. Especially the least among us, the young, the old, the disabled and the poor. If you cause harm to people either directly or through some sick ideology that creates sick policies based of social Darwinism, then you are one of the executioners. I never side with the executioners.
> 
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Modern liberals have been pushing vile despicable social policies of redistributing wealth for decades.  There is no excuse for it.  Hand ups work hand outs do not work.  Conservatives are in favor of hand ups not hand outs.  You are therefore, evil.  Satan's spawn.
Click to expand...


BULLSHIT! Liberals believe in a hand up. Conservatives believe in a hand to the face. Conservatives are NOT for a hand up. They never have and never will be. Conservatives at every turn have spent millions on propaganda to slander, defame, denigrate, smear, disparage, discredit and vilify hand UP programs going all the way back to the War on Poverty, a HAND UP program.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projection identified. Nice try at twisting what I said into some evil.
> 
> I always put people first, that is the core of liberalism. Especially the least among us, the young, the old, the disabled and the poor. If you cause harm to people either directly or through some sick ideology that creates sick policies based of social Darwinism, then you are one of the executioners. I never side with the executioners.
> 
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern liberals have been pushing vile despicable social policies of redistributing wealth for decades.  There is no excuse for it.  Hand ups work hand outs do not work.  Conservatives are in favor of hand ups not hand outs.  You are therefore, evil.  Satan's spawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT! Liberals believe in a hand up. Conservatives believe in a hand to the face. Conservatives are NOT for a hand up. They never have and never will be. Conservatives at every turn have spent millions on propaganda to slander, defame, denigrate, smear, disparage, discredit and vilify hand UP programs going all the way back to the War on Poverty, a HAND UP program.
Click to expand...

You are a lying piece dung.


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern liberals have been pushing vile despicable social policies of redistributing wealth for decades.  There is no excuse for it.  Hand ups work hand outs do not work.  Conservatives are in favor of hand ups not hand outs.  You are therefore, evil.  Satan's spawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT! Liberals believe in a hand up. Conservatives believe in a hand to the face. Conservatives are NOT for a hand up. They never have and never will be. Conservatives at every turn have spent millions on propaganda to slander, defame, denigrate, smear, disparage, discredit and vilify hand UP programs going all the way back to the War on Poverty, a HAND UP program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a lying piece dung.
Click to expand...


Listen sonny boy, I've been around since Truman was in the White House. I KNOW of what I speak. Matter of fact, old Harry had you right wing turds figured out way back in 1948.

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman


----------



## Mr. H.

Liberals question my business practicum. I simply tell them to practice business. And to that I am met with blank stares.


----------



## Bfgrn

Mr. H. said:


> Liberals question my business practicum. I simply tell them to practice business. And to that I am met with blank stares.



So you tell them to empty their own garbage cans.


----------



## Mr. H.

Bfgrn said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals question my business practicum. I simply tell them to practice business. And to that I am met with blank stares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you tell them to empty their own garbage cans.
Click to expand...


Simple work ethic is lost on the Liberal. 

Stay at home check collectors add nothing to society or the GDP.


----------



## Bfgrn

Mr. H. said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals question my business practicum. I simply tell them to practice business. And to that I am met with blank stares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you tell them to empty their own garbage cans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple work ethic is lost on the Liberal.
> 
> Stay at home check collectors add nothing to society or the GDP.
Click to expand...


Thank you for exposing your simple mind Parrot.


----------



## Pogo

Mr. H. said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals question my business practicum. I simply tell them to practice business. And to that I am met with blank stares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you tell them to empty their own garbage cans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple work ethic is lost on the Liberal.
> 
> Stay at home check collectors add nothing to society or the GDP.
Click to expand...


Blanket statement fallacieurs add even less.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> It's pretty safe to say any time you find your post language using absolutes and extremes, you're probably playing outside the lines.



In all fairness Pogo, you are one of the more partisan posters on the board, so your complaints are rich irony.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bfgrn said:


> You are wrong. Conservatism has never been worthy of respect. They are the scourge of mankind. It's the manifestation of authoritarian parenting that metastasizes in adults.



And you'd happily kill us all if you had the power to do so, Da Comrade Pot?


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty safe to say any time you find your post language using absolutes and extremes, you're probably playing outside the lines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness Pogo, you are one of the more partisan posters on the board, so your complaints are rich irony.
Click to expand...


Am I now... from the wag who calls anyone with a variant view "khmer rouge"...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> Am I now... from the wag who calls anyone with a variant view "khmer rouge"...



Just those who want to purge the nation of all who fail to serve your shameful party..

Oh, and I was not the one placing myself above the fray, that was you - sporky...

Standard Disclaimer: There is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I now... from the wag who calls anyone with a variant view "khmer rouge"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just those who want to purge the nation of all who fail to serve your shameful party..
> 
> Oh, and I was not the one placing myself above the fray, that was you - sporky...
> 
> Standard Disclaimer: There is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy.
Click to expand...


"your party" 

Not only making my point for me but amplifying it.  Classic.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> "your party"
> 
> Not only making my point for me but amplifying it.  Classic.



Oh, are you an "independent," like Rdean?

Yeah, you're completely independent, you've opposed the democrats on... um.... uh..... well...

ROFL


----------



## Foxfyre

It is soooooo difficult to stay on topic once the insults start flying, isn't it eh boys?  But yes, those who accuse others of blind partisanship when they themselves are passionately partisan do appear hypocritical.  And those who make extreme statements about others appear hateful and mean spirited and clueless about the realities.  And it becomes almost impossible to have a discussion about much of anything.

And though liberalism seems to produce an excessive amount of that kind of nonsense--I still say it is the rare liberal who CAN focus on a topic separate from accusing or blaming somebody else--I can't say it is totally unique to liberals.  There are some conservatives who are equally as irrational and equally ad hominem if they don't agree with another's conservative pespective.  Conservatives usually can articulate a non ad hominem rationale for a point of view, however.  So far, I don't find many liberals who can.

For instance, regardless of their circumstances or how just we may believe it to be that a person is receiving public assistance, it is a FACT that those who receive public money that they did not work for do not contribute to the GDP.  Rather every penny they receive x 3 drains resources from the economy.   But the discussion can never be about just that can it?  It invariably dissolves into the "hard heartedness, selfishness, mean spiritedness. etc. of conservatives" or the "mushy, communist, ignorance, self serving dishonesty etc. of liberals."

Why is that?  Why can't a statement of fact be stated without it dissolving into an ideological and/or partisan food fight?


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> It is soooooo difficult to stay on topic once the insults start flying, isn't it eh boys?  But yes, those who accuse others of blind partisanship when they themselves are passionately partisan do appear hypocritical.  And those who make extreme statements about others appear hateful and mean spirited and clueless about the realities.  And it becomes almost impossible to have a discussion about much of anything.
> 
> And though liberalism seems to produce an excessive amount of that kind of nonsense--I still say it is the rare liberal who CAN focus on a topic separate from accusing or blaming somebody else--I can't say it is totally unique to liberals.  There are some conservatives who are equally as irrational and equally ad hominem if they don't agree with another's conservative pespective.  Conservatives usually can articulate a non ad hominem rationale for a point of view, however.  So far, I don't find many liberals who can.
> 
> For instance, regardless of their circumstances or how just we may believe it to be that a person is receiving public assistance, it is a FACT that those who receive public money that they did not work for do not contribute to the GDP.  Rather every penny they receive x 3 drains resources from the economy.   But the discussion can never be about just that can it?  It invariably dissolves into the "hard heartedness, selfishness, mean spiritedness. etc. of conservatives" or the "mushy, communist, ignorance, self serving dishonesty etc. of liberals."
> 
> Why is that?  Why can't a statement of fact be stated without it dissolving into an ideological and/or partisan food fight?



Because the folks who have worked their whole lives to build things up don't like the folks who have worked their whole lives to tear it down?


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is soooooo difficult to stay on topic once the insults start flying, isn't it eh boys?  But yes, those who accuse others of blind partisanship when they themselves are passionately partisan do appear hypocritical.  And those who make extreme statements about others appear hateful and mean spirited and clueless about the realities.  And it becomes almost impossible to have a discussion about much of anything.
> 
> And though liberalism seems to produce an excessive amount of that kind of nonsense--I still say it is the rare liberal who CAN focus on a topic separate from accusing or blaming somebody else--I can't say it is totally unique to liberals.  There are some conservatives who are equally as irrational and equally ad hominem if they don't agree with another's conservative pespective.  Conservatives usually can articulate a non ad hominem rationale for a point of view, however.  So far, I don't find many liberals who can.
> 
> For instance, regardless of their circumstances or how just we may believe it to be that a person is receiving public assistance, it is a FACT that those who receive public money that they did not work for do not contribute to the GDP.  Rather every penny they receive x 3 drains resources from the economy.   But the discussion can never be about just that can it?  It invariably dissolves into the "hard heartedness, selfishness, mean spiritedness. etc. of conservatives" or the "mushy, communist, ignorance, self serving dishonesty etc. of liberals."
> 
> Why is that?  Why can't a statement of fact be stated without it dissolving into an ideological and/or partisan food fight?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the folks who have worked their whole lives to build things up don't like the folks who have worked their whole lives to tear it down?
Click to expand...


But the statement itself has nothing to do with building things up or tearing things down.  It is a statement of fact without any partisan or ideological reference.  Why can't it be addressed on that basis?  Off to take an elderly relative to the doctor here.  Back later.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is soooooo difficult to stay on topic once the insults start flying, isn't it eh boys?  But yes, those who accuse others of blind partisanship when they themselves are passionately partisan do appear hypocritical.  And those who make extreme statements about others appear hateful and mean spirited and clueless about the realities.  And it becomes almost impossible to have a discussion about much of anything.
> 
> And though liberalism seems to produce an excessive amount of that kind of nonsense--I still say it is the rare liberal who CAN focus on a topic separate from accusing or blaming somebody else--I can't say it is totally unique to liberals.  There are some conservatives who are equally as irrational and equally ad hominem if they don't agree with another's conservative pespective.  Conservatives usually can articulate a non ad hominem rationale for a point of view, however.  So far, I don't find many liberals who can.
> 
> For instance, regardless of their circumstances or how just we may believe it to be that a person is receiving public assistance, it is a FACT that those who receive public money that they did not work for do not contribute to the GDP.  Rather every penny they receive x 3 drains resources from the economy.   But the discussion can never be about just that can it?  It invariably dissolves into the "hard heartedness, selfishness, mean spiritedness. etc. of conservatives" or the "mushy, communist, ignorance, self serving dishonesty etc. of liberals."
> 
> Why is that?  Why can't a statement of fact be stated without it dissolving into an ideological and/or partisan food fight?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the folks who have worked their whole lives to build things up don't like the folks who have worked their whole lives to tear it down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the statement itself has nothing to do with building things up or tearing things down.  It is a statement of fact without any partisan or ideological reference.  Why can't it be addressed on that basis?  Off to take an elderly relative to the doctor here.  Back later.
Click to expand...


Deflection is a tactic employed by all people.  If the facts don't support your policy, deflect, obfuscate, curse, call em names,... Here is the list of tactics outlined in Rules for Radicals:


			
				Rules for Radicals said:
			
		

> * RULE 1: Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have. Power is derived from 2 main sources  money and people. Have-Nots must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
> * RULE 2: Never go outside the expertise of your people. It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals dont address the real issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
> * RULE 3: Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
> * RULE 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entitys very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
> * RULE 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. There is no defense. Its irrational. Its infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
> * RULE 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. Theyll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. Theyre doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid un-fun activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
> * RULE 7: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Dont become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
> * RULE 8: Keep the pressure on. Never let up. Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
> * RULE 9: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
> * RULE 10: If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive. Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred managements wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
> * RULE 11: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Never let the enemy score points because youre caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If youre not part of the solution, youre part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
> * RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the folks who have worked their whole lives to build things up don't like the folks who have worked their whole lives to tear it down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the statement itself has nothing to do with building things up or tearing things down.  It is a statement of fact without any partisan or ideological reference.  Why can't it be addressed on that basis?  Off to take an elderly relative to the doctor here.  Back later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflection is a tactic employed by all people.  If the facts don't support your policy, deflect, obfuscate, curse, call em names,... Here is the list of tactics outlined in Rules for Radicals:
> 
> 
> 
> Rules for Radicals said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * RULE 1: Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have. Power is derived from 2 main sources  money and people. Have-Nots must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
> * RULE 2: Never go outside the expertise of your people. It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals dont address the real issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
> * RULE 3: Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
> * RULE 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entitys very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
> * RULE 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. There is no defense. Its irrational. Its infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
> * RULE 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. Theyll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. Theyre doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid un-fun activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
> * RULE 7: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Dont become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
> * RULE 8: Keep the pressure on. Never let up. Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
> * RULE 9: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
> * RULE 10: If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive. Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred managements wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
> * RULE 11: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Never let the enemy score points because youre caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If youre not part of the solution, youre part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
> * RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The irony is the tea party are the ones buying, reading and using Alinsky tactics. But THAT is different, because the conservative agenda is sacred.

Albany's FreedomWorks manager trains group | FreedomWorks


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> It is soooooo difficult to stay on topic once the insults start flying, isn't it eh boys?  But yes, those who accuse others of blind partisanship when they themselves are passionately partisan do appear hypocritical.  And those who make extreme statements about others appear hateful and mean spirited and clueless about the realities.  And it becomes almost impossible to have a discussion about much of anything.
> 
> And though liberalism seems to produce an excessive amount of that kind of nonsense--I still say it is the rare liberal who CAN focus on a topic separate from accusing or blaming somebody else--I can't say it is totally unique to liberals.  There are some conservatives who are equally as irrational and equally ad hominem if they don't agree with another's conservative pespective.  Conservatives usually can articulate a non ad hominem rationale for a point of view, however.  So far, I don't find many liberals who can.
> 
> For instance, regardless of their circumstances or how just we may believe it to be that a person is receiving public assistance, *it is a FACT that those who receive public money that they did not work for do not contribute to the GDP.  Rather every penny they receive x 3 drains resources from the economy.*   But the discussion can never be about just that can it?  It invariably dissolves into the "hard heartedness, selfishness, mean spiritedness. etc. of conservatives" or the "mushy, communist, ignorance, self serving dishonesty etc. of liberals."
> 
> Why is that?  Why can't a statement of fact be stated without it dissolving into an ideological and/or partisan food fight?



Proof?


----------



## Ernie S.

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is soooooo difficult to stay on topic once the insults start flying, isn't it eh boys?  But yes, those who accuse others of blind partisanship when they themselves are passionately partisan do appear hypocritical.  And those who make extreme statements about others appear hateful and mean spirited and clueless about the realities.  And it becomes almost impossible to have a discussion about much of anything.
> 
> And though liberalism seems to produce an excessive amount of that kind of nonsense--I still say it is the rare liberal who CAN focus on a topic separate from accusing or blaming somebody else--I can't say it is totally unique to liberals.  There are some conservatives who are equally as irrational and equally ad hominem if they don't agree with another's conservative pespective.  Conservatives usually can articulate a non ad hominem rationale for a point of view, however.  So far, I don't find many liberals who can.
> 
> For instance, regardless of their circumstances or how just we may believe it to be that a person is receiving public assistance, *it is a FACT that those who receive public money that they did not work for do not contribute to the GDP.  Rather every penny they receive x 3 drains resources from the economy.*   But the discussion can never be about just that can it?  It invariably dissolves into the "hard heartedness, selfishness, mean spiritedness. etc. of conservatives" or the "mushy, communist, ignorance, self serving dishonesty etc. of liberals."
> 
> Why is that?  Why can't a statement of fact be stated without it dissolving into an ideological and/or partisan food fight?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?
Click to expand...


Are you really that daft? 
People who buy things with government money may make the purchase, but the people who earned the money that the government taxed bought those items. GDP is Gross Domestic Product. People existing on the benevolence of the tax payer produce no product, perform no service thus are only an anchor holding down economic growth.


----------



## American_Jihad

Todays liberalism is completely wrapped up with the notion of self. The legacy of the 1960s if it feels good do it ethos is alive and well. Modern liberals often embrace these teachings and incorporate them in the way they live their lives and maintain their relationships.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdhefZgr9U8]ASS SNIFFING DOG - YouTube[/ame]

...


----------



## American_Jihad

*What Terrorists Want*

August 12, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield

Freud famously said that what women want was the one question that he was never able to answer. The modern liberal, having abolished gender and the family, no longer worries about what women want. Instead he worries what the terrorists, who despite his best efforts to appease them, to respect their culture and religion keep blowing him up, want.

Recently it came out that the creative director of the September 11 Museum opposed including the famous photo that shows New York City firefighters raising the flag over the ruins of the World Trade Center. When reached for comment, the creative director said that he did not want to simplify 9/11.

Its simplicity, he said, would actually distort the complexity of the event, the meaning of the event.

Liberals are great lovers of nuance. Ask an ordinary New Yorker who saw the planes hit the towers what the terrorists want and he will say, To kill us all. But to the left that is an excessive simplification that leaves out such key elements as American foreign policy, the role of automation in a global economy and the price of tea in China.

...

But what do terrorists really want? They want to win, while we seem to want to lose. The foreign policy prescriptions of liberal experts like the idea of us losing.

The way America will look best, the way we can really do best, is to not be Americans so vigilantly and so vehemently, the creative director of the September 11 museum said.

Theres no way that we can stop being Americans, but we can start feeling bad about that. We can stop thrilling at the sight of an American flag rising over the rubble of Ground Zero and learn to feel bad about it. We can stop wanting to win and start trying to lose.

And then maybe well finally understand what the terrorists want. What they really, really want.

What Terrorists Want | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## Bfgrn

Ernie S. said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is soooooo difficult to stay on topic once the insults start flying, isn't it eh boys?  But yes, those who accuse others of blind partisanship when they themselves are passionately partisan do appear hypocritical.  And those who make extreme statements about others appear hateful and mean spirited and clueless about the realities.  And it becomes almost impossible to have a discussion about much of anything.
> 
> And though liberalism seems to produce an excessive amount of that kind of nonsense--I still say it is the rare liberal who CAN focus on a topic separate from accusing or blaming somebody else--I can't say it is totally unique to liberals.  There are some conservatives who are equally as irrational and equally ad hominem if they don't agree with another's conservative pespective.  Conservatives usually can articulate a non ad hominem rationale for a point of view, however.  So far, I don't find many liberals who can.
> 
> For instance, regardless of their circumstances or how just we may believe it to be that a person is receiving public assistance, *it is a FACT that those who receive public money that they did not work for do not contribute to the GDP.  Rather every penny they receive x 3 drains resources from the economy.*   But the discussion can never be about just that can it?  It invariably dissolves into the "hard heartedness, selfishness, mean spiritedness. etc. of conservatives" or the "mushy, communist, ignorance, self serving dishonesty etc. of liberals."
> 
> Why is that?  Why can't a statement of fact be stated without it dissolving into an ideological and/or partisan food fight?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that daft?
> People who buy things with government money may make the purchase, but the people who earned the money that the government taxed bought those items. GDP is Gross Domestic Product. People existing on the benevolence of the tax payer produce no product, perform no service thus are only an anchor holding down economic growth.
Click to expand...


Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Food stamps offer best stimulus 

In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy

Food stamps offer best stimulus - study - Jan. 29, 2008


----------



## Dragonlady

Foxfyre said:


> For instance, regardless of their circumstances or how just we may believe it to be that a person is receiving public assistance, it is a FACT that those who receive public money that they did not work for do not contribute to the GDP.  Rather every penny they receive x 3 drains resources from the economy.   But the discussion can never be about just that can it?  It invariably dissolves into the "hard heartedness, selfishness, mean spiritedness. etc. of conservatives" or the "mushy, communist, ignorance, self serving dishonesty etc. of liberals."
> 
> Why is that?  Why can't a statement of fact be stated without it dissolving into an ideological and/or partisan food fight?



Because it's not a statement of fact.  Public assistance is NOT a 3X drain on the resources of the economy.  In fact, some forms of public assistance are actually a boon to the economy.  

It doesn't help when conservatives focus on the idea that public assistance as the defining difference between liberals and conservatives.  Especially since the hardcore welfare recipient, the one that conservatives rail against endlessly, is such a small percentage of the population.  

Focusing on the 1% of the population who don't contribute and will never contribute, instead of looking at how things work for the other 99% of the people, is pointless.  Everything has to be means tested, adding to costs and bloating government, because we can't have a single undeserving person receiving assistance.  It's picking up the peanuts while be trampled by the elephants.

Instead of focussing on the why wages for low income workers have lost purchasing power, we have a whole thread here about a kid in California who buys sushi with his food stamps.  Where is the outrage that Walmart has staff to help their *employees* get food stamps because they are so poorly paid?  That is the real fraud - high profits for the corporation while they encourage their workers to use public assistance, instead of paying them a living wage.  But there's no conservative outrage there.  It's a good corporation, doing nothing illegal.

The kid in California is getting a few hundred dollars per year in food stamps.  Walmart employees are getting billions in public assistance.  Conservatives see Walmart as good and the surfer as a drain on the public purse.  I see both as a drain on the public purse, but Walmart is using the system to funnel billions back into corporate profits and pay their employees less.

One surfer kid is not going to bring down the US economy, but Walmart, and other large retailers which uses similar employment policies, are having a HUGE impact on that whole employment segment, while funnelling enormous amounts of income and wealth to the Walton heirs.  They don't work either, but you're good with that.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> The irony is the tea party are the ones buying, reading and using Alinsky tactics. But THAT is different, because the conservative agenda is sacred.



To know your enemy, you must know his tactics.  Ends justify the means is the calling card of all authoritarians of all political movements.  Just because the number of constitutional liberty loving conservatives in the tea party is greater than the number in the republican party which is even greater than the number in the democrat party does not mean the tea party and / or republican parties are not chock full of authoritarians.  Authoritarianism is a disease that infects every group of people.  Even the founders had a few authoritarians.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that daft?
> People who buy things with government money may make the purchase, but the people who earned the money that the government taxed bought those items. GDP is Gross Domestic Product. People existing on the benevolence of the tax payer produce no product, perform no service thus are only an anchor holding down economic growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
> Daniel Patrick Moynihan
> 
> Food stamps offer best stimulus
> 
> In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy
> 
> Food stamps offer best stimulus - study - Jan. 29, 2008
Click to expand...


ROFL... That chart/study is a joke. The so called "ripple" effect of the cost of a dollar of food is already built into the cost of the food.  You really think it costs 1.73 to bring every dollar of food to your shopping cart? ROFL Ripple effect.


----------



## numan

KevinWestern said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never side with the executioners. If you want to use the only tool conservatives learned, punishment, then I am your worst nightmare. I will fight you scum bags tooth and nail.
> 
> "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
> Albert Camus
> 
> 
> 
> There are executioners on both sides of the political spectrum. Bush was one, and so is Obama.
> 
> Change will come when real people begin banding together in real, organic gatherings. We must not hate each other, as that will surely be our downfall.
Click to expand...

Modern Americans are addicted to downfall.

And there are not enough Real People left in this country to do anything sensible. The zombies and idiots have won.
.


----------



## numan

Bfgrn said:


> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower


President Eisenhower obviously underestimated the power of propaganda and brainwashing to turn decent Republicans into Neo-Con Monsters.

.


----------



## Duped

Read my sig.


----------



## numan

Bfgrn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a lying piece dung.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen sonny boy, I've been around since Truman was in the White House. I KNOW of what I speak. Matter of fact, old Harry had you right wing turds figured out way back in 1948.
> 
> "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home -- but not for housing. They are strong for labor -- but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage -- the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all -- but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits -- so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine -- for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade -- so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons -- but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing -- but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful -- but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices" -- but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing -- so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
> 
> President Harry S. Truman
Click to expand...

Tut, tut.... Don't be so hard on the right-wing turd. It's not his fault -- he's a Texan, and knows not what he says.

The best thing would be to expel Texas from the Federal Union. Then their potentates would no longer be able to murder our presidents, and there would be no more Texan presidents, who have -- twice!! -- led this nation into corrupt and disastrous wars.

It should be obvious that another Texan president would destroy the USA. The only sure way to prevent this is to get rid of Texas.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> For instance, regardless of their circumstances or how just we may believe it to be that a person is receiving public assistance, it is a FACT that those who receive public money that they did not work for do not contribute to the GDP.  Rather every penny they receive x 3 drains resources from the economy.   But the discussion can never be about just that can it?  It invariably dissolves into the "hard heartedness, selfishness, mean spiritedness. etc. of conservatives" or the "mushy, communist, ignorance, self serving dishonesty etc. of liberals."
> 
> Why is that?  Why can't a statement of fact be stated without it dissolving into an ideological and/or partisan food fight?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's not a statement of fact.  Public assistance is NOT a 3X drain on the resources of the economy.  In fact, some forms of public assistance are actually a boon to the economy.
> 
> It doesn't help when conservatives focus on the idea that public assistance as the defining difference between liberals and conservatives.  Especially since the hardcore welfare recipient, the one that conservatives rail against endlessly, is such a small percentage of the population.
> 
> Focusing on the 1% of the population who don't contribute and will never contribute, instead of looking at how things work for the other 99% of the people, is pointless.  Everything has to be means tested, adding to costs and bloating government, because we can't have a single undeserving person receiving assistance.  It's picking up the peanuts while be trampled by the elephants.
> 
> Instead of focussing on the why wages for low income workers have lost purchasing power, we have a whole thread here about a kid in California who buys sushi with his food stamps.  Where is the outrage that Walmart has staff to help their *employees* get food stamps because they are so poorly paid?  That is the real fraud - high profits for the corporation while they encourage their workers to use public assistance, instead of paying them a living wage.  But there's no conservative outrage there.  It's a good corporation, doing nothing illegal.
> 
> The kid in California is getting a few hundred dollars per year in food stamps.  Walmart employees are getting billions in public assistance.  Conservatives see Walmart as good and the surfer as a drain on the public purse.  I see both as a drain on the public purse, but Walmart is using the system to funnel billions back into corporate profits and pay their employees less.
> 
> One surfer kid is not going to bring down the US economy, but Walmart, and other large retailers which uses similar employment policies, are having a HUGE impact on that whole employment segment, while funnelling enormous amounts of income and wealth to the Walton heirs.  They don't work either, but you're good with that.
Click to expand...


See?  You reject a simple statement of fact, but do not give us one single argument for WHY it is not a fact or HOW it instead is a boon to the economy.   You have just illustrated my point that, as a liberal, you are incapable of focusing on that concept separate from ideology or partisanship.  You are instead  compelled to launch into yet another screed re the actions, thoughts, and motives of conservatives and Wal-mart.

And elsewhere the food fight continues with the blame, accusations, and hateful characterization of those who hold opposing views. 

And THAT is what drives me crazy about liberals.   With very few exceptions, they are incapable of focusing on a concept but their whole philosophy is wrapped up in their belief that they are nicer, better people, more generous, more compassionate,more noble, more righteous, and more realistic than any conservative could ever be.   And they only know one way to debate:  attack the other person, his values, his beliefs, his point of view personally and/or change the subject.

(Yes, again I acknowledge that some conservatives do that too, mostly because they like doing it.  The difference between conservatives and liberals in that regard, however, is that most conservatives CAN focus on a single concept apart from partisanship and ideology if they want to or have to.  I see no evidence here or anywhere else that the huge majority of liberals can.)


----------



## Foxfyre

So now let's try it again and see if we can get a different result.

*The concept:  public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.* 

My rationale for that statement:  

The reason is that every dollar the government takes in taxes is a dollar that is removed from the economy and is not available for others to borrow, that is not invested to help businesses grow and expand, that is not available for higher wages and benefits, hire more people, or spend for products and services that others need to sell in order to prosper themselves.

It does not matter how important or necessary the purpose of the tax is, it still has the same effect. 

Now spending is a different thing.  The cost of what the government spends for any reason is almost always x 3 because roughly two thirds of that tax dollar collected will be swallowed up just to sustain the enormous bloated government that we have.  A government with an ever increasing appetite and need to feed itself.

However, if the dollar is spent in the private sector in a way that helps keep people working and producing in the private sector, it is still a drain but is less damaging to the economy than when it spent on those who contribute nothing to the GDP on their own   It is still the most expensive way to generate economic stimulus, but if it helps others contribute to the GDP on their own, it does blunt the negative consequences a bit.

But when it is spent in the private sector in a way that only enriches a privileged few or is given to those who produce nothing, it is a much more intense drain on the economy overall.  It takes $2 out of the economy for every $1 the recipient receives and spends.

It would be great if only 1% of the people were receiving public assistance and contributing nothing.  We wouldn't even notice the cost.  But we have an almost $17 trillion dollar national debt to show for all the money that an ever increasing, more expensive, more intrusive government has spent.

And everybody feels that.

*Note:  This argument accuses nobody, refers to no ideology, refers to no poliical party, refers to no person, entity, demographic, or point of view.  It is a pure statement of fact.*

*Can any liberal refute the concept with a reasoned argument and without referring to an ideology, political party, person, entity, demographic, or point of view?   Or without veering off into a "but what about. . . .?"  Or will any liberal simply agree that the concept and rationale for it are most likely mostly true?*

I am throwing the gauntlet down here.  I'm going to say no liberal will even try.   And I will be amazed if any liberal agrees that it is mostly true.   I'm pretty sure many if not most or all conservatives will agree that it is mostly all true.

Once the concept is acknowledged - THEN it is possible to move into a discussion of how we got to this point or what the remedy might be and/or the virtues or lack thereof of public assistance.

But if we can't look at the concept itself with no righteous indignation thrown in, no useful discussion is possible.


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> President Eisenhower obviously underestimated the power of propaganda and brainwashing to turn decent Republicans into Neo-Con Monsters.
> 
> .



But Pol Pot understood exactly what it took to turn American democrats into you...


----------



## Foxfyre

More than an hour now, and no liberal has chimed in.  Crickets.

I'm assuming the conservatives are holding back to give the liberals a chance to do so?

I'm guessing don't hold your breath guys.  I hoped at least one of the more reasoned members from the left would give it a shot, but alas, I will be required to hold my conviction that liberals are incapable of addressing concepts on their own merit. . . at least for awhile longer.

But that addresses the question in the OP which I have amended to "Why do people reject liberalism?"    "Hate" is too strong a word for me in this context.


----------



## Dragonlady

Foxfyre said:


> The reason is that every dollar the government takes in taxes is a dollar that is removed from the economy and is not available for others to borrow, that is not invested to help businesses grow and expand, that is not available for higher wages and benefits, hire more people, or spend for products and services that others need to sell in order to prosper themselves.



Given that American corporations, stockholders and banks are awash in cash right now, the problem is not that there is a lack of capital for corporations to invest or spend so your argument that these funds are needed to grow the economy doesn't wash.  Your concern that public assistance is cutting available capital for business to hire and invest just isn't valid at this point in time in history, which is not to say it isn't or wasn't a valid concern in the past..

I do agree that many social programs add to waste because of the bureaucracy which maintains them, and a lot of that is due to means testing.  There are 10 major government assistance programs which all have their own departments to test whether or not people qualify for the assistance based on income.  Means testing adds a layer of expense to all programs - additional staff to review the applicants, a fraud squad to ferret out cheaters.  Often, it is far cheaper to simply make the benefit available to all applicants, rather than hire additional people to administer the means test to limit it to those with income below a certain level.  For those who oppose public assistance programs in the first place, the idea of not limiting the program to the most needy, is a no-go, and yet sorting out the needy from those who are not, is far more expensive than just giving it to those who apply.

Food stamps is the worst example of a government program which should not exist.  It piggybacks on welfare, medicaid and other programs, but its own expensive department set up to administer the program.  And recipients are limited to where they spend the money and on what.  Since the average benefit is only $138 per month, wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to increase welfare payments by a similar amount and eliminate all of the government infrastructure administering the food stamp program?  And let the beneficiaries buy food where they want with the money.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is that every dollar the government takes in taxes is a dollar that is removed from the economy and is not available for others to borrow, that is not invested to help businesses grow and expand, that is not available for higher wages and benefits, hire more people, or spend for products and services that others need to sell in order to prosper themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that American corporations, stockholders and banks are awash in cash right now, the problem is not that there is a lack of capital for corporations to invest or spend so your argument that these funds are needed to grow the economy doesn't wash.  Your concern that public assistance is cutting available capital for business to hire and invest just isn't valid at this point in time in history, which is not to say it isn't or wasn't a valid concern in the past..
> 
> I do agree that many social programs add to waste because of the bureaucracy which maintains them, and a lot of that is due to means testing.  There are 10 major government assistance programs which all have their own departments to test whether or not people qualify for the assistance based on income.  Means testing adds a layer of expense to all programs - additional staff to review the applicants, a fraud squad to ferret out cheaters.  Often, it is far cheaper to simply make the benefit available to all applicants, rather than hire additional people to administer the means test to limit it to those with income below a certain level.  For those who oppose public assistance programs in the first place, the idea of not limiting the program to the most needy, is a no-go, and yet sorting out the needy from those who are not, is far more expensive than just giving it to those who apply.
> 
> Food stamps is the worst example of a government program which should not exist.  It piggybacks on welfare, medicaid and other programs, but its own expensive department set up to administer the program.  And recipients are limited to where they spend the money and on what.  Since the average benefit is only $138 per month, wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to increase welfare payments by a similar amount and eliminate all of the government infrastructure administering the food stamp program?  And let the beneficiaries buy food where they want with the money.
Click to expand...


All reasoned arguments for what the federal government does with some of the tax money.

But you still are not addressing the concept itself:

*public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.*​
And the key point for the rationale for the concept:

The reason is that every dollar the government takes in taxes is a dollar that is removed from the economy and is not available for others to borrow, that is not invested to help businesses grow and expand, that is not available for higher wages and benefits, hire more people, or spend for products and services that others need to sell in order to prosper themselves​
....all of which has nothing to do with corporations, stockholders, and banks being awash in cash even if some are.  Most aren't.

Nor does it address the built in issue that public assistance provided by the federal government takes $2 out of the economy for every $1 the recipient receives and that is why it is a drain on the economy.


----------



## numan

Dragonlady said:


> I do agree that many social programs add to waste because of the bureaucracy which maintains them....


I think you are correct, Dragonlady, and the correct way to eliminate all this expensive bureaucracy and all the wasteful programs is for every American citizen to have a guaranteed annual income.

Naturally, it should be a modest income -- at least to begin with -- just enough for basic food and shelter and medical expenses.

It would need a modest bureaucracy, perhaps using the already extant Internal Revenue Service. 

At one stroke, most of the haunting uncertainty torturing so many millions in our demonic, dog-eat-dog monopoly capitalist society would be eliminated. 

The more enterprising elements of the vast American underclass would manage to scrape up enough capital and backing for small enterprises, and many would be enabled to escape the urban jungles where they are presently imprisoned. Many would go to live and work in less expensive outlying regions, and they would bring money to vivify the economies of less developed regions.

It would be a win-win situation for everyone -- except of course, for the bloated monopoly capitalists and the agents of totalitarian government, whose every effort is aimed at controlling everyone and everything.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

And if you were able to address the presented concept, Numan, and we could agree on the truth of it, then that would change the argument for the government being able to guarantee an income for every American wouldn't it?  But until we can understand what government money actually is, and the cost to us for governmenting having it, there is no way to move from that point to what the role of government and money actually should be.


----------



## numan

Foxfyre said:


> But until we can understand what government money actually is, and the cost to us for governmenting having it, there is no way to move from that point to what the role of government and money actually should be.


Oh, you're too complicated for me, Foxy !!

My view is: reduce the War Machine until it is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub, and send the military and their minions to re-education camps where they can learn what it is to be a civilian and a citizen, then I think there will be plenty of money for what I propose -- and a lot left over, too!!

.


----------



## Foxfyre

numan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But until we can understand what government money actually is, and the cost to us for governmenting having it, there is no way to move from that point to what the role of government and money actually should be.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you're too complicated for me, Foxy !!
> 
> My view is: reduce the War Machine until it is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub, and send the military and their minions to re-education camps where they can learn what it is to be a civilian and a citizen, then I think there will be plenty of money for what I propose -- and a lot left over, too!!
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Again the War Machine is a totally different subject.  But I agree the concept may be too complicated for you or any other liberal.  Not your fault.  It's just the way it is, at least based on the experience I have had with liberals to date.

Again the concept it:

*Public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.*​
Do you agree with that concept or not?  If not, why not?

It's just as simple as that.  Not really complicated for the average conservative at all.  Is there any liberal who can understand it as a stand alone statement?


----------



## numan

Foxfyre said:


> *Public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.*
> 
> Do you agree with that concept or not?


Of course I do not agree with such palaeolithic notions of economics !!

'
*Complexity Economics*



> Complexity economics is the application of complexity science to the problems of economics. It studies computer simulations to gain insight into economic dynamics, and avoids the assumption that the economy is a system in equilibrium....
> More generally, complexity economics models are often used to study how non-intuitive results at the macro-level of a system can emerge from simple interactions at the micro level. This avoids assumptions of the representative agent method, which attributes outcomes in collective systems as the simple sum of the rational actions of the individuals....
> 
> The *Economic Complexity Index (ECI)* introduced by Hausmann and Hidalgo  is highly predictive of future GDP per capita growth. Hausmann, Hidalgo et al. show that the *ability of the ECI to predict future GDP per capita growth* is between 5 times and 20 times larger than the World Bank's measure of governance, the World Economic Forum's (WEF) Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) and standard measures of human capital, such as years of schooling and cognitive ability....
> 
> Several features of complex systems that deserve greater attention in economics:
> 
> 1.	*Dispersed interaction*The economy has interaction between many dispersed, heterogeneous, agents. The action of any given agent depends upon the anticipated actions of other agents and on the aggregate state of the economy.
> 
> 2.	*No global controller*Controls are provided by mechanisms of competition and coordination between agents. Economic actions are mediated by legal institutions, assigned roles, and shifting associations. No global entity controls interactions. Traditionally, a fictitious auctioneer has appeared in some mathematical analyses of general equilibrium models, although nobody claimed any descriptive accuracy for such models. Traditionally, many mainstream models have imposed constraints, such as requiring that budgets be balanced, and such constraints are avoided in complexity economics.
> 
> 3.	*Cross-cutting hierarchical organization*The economy has many levels of organization and interaction. Units at any given level behaviors, actions, strategies, products typically serve as "building blocks" for constructing units at the next higher level. The overall organization is more than hierarchical, with many sorts of tangling interactions (associations, channels of communication) across levels.
> 
> 4.	*Ongoing adaptation*Behaviors, actions, strategies, and products are revised frequently as the individual agents accumulate experience.
> 
> 5.	*Novelty niches*Such niches are associated with new markets, new technologies, new behaviors, and new institutions. The very act of filling a niche may provide new niches. The result is ongoing novelty.
> 
> 6.	*Out-of-equilibrium dynamics*Because new niches, new potentials, new possibilities, are continually created, the economy functions without attaining any optimum or global equilibrium. Improvements occur regularly.


Or is that too complicated for you, Foxy?
.


----------



## RKMBrown

numan said:


> It's not his fault -- he's a Texan, and knows not what he says.
> 
> The best thing would be to expel Texas from the Federal Union. Then their potentates would no longer be able to murder our presidents, and there would be no more Texan presidents, who have -- twice!! -- led this nation into corrupt and disastrous wars.
> 
> It should be obvious that another Texan president would destroy the USA. The only sure way to prevent this is to get rid of Texas.
> 
> .


I almost wish I had an argument with any of these statements.  But alas, I must agree.  Can you please call Obama and tell him to set TX adrift?


----------



## Wry Catcher

syrenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> A liberal is willing to recognize that there are many areas in life where there is neither right nor wrong, just a range of choices, choices which will not solve the whole of the problems, and are not good or bad, but more effective or less effective. This does not set well with conservatives, who prefer definate right and wrong.
> 
> Also, liberals accept reality far better than conservatives. They do not try to bend the real world into "the way things ought to be". That is why 'Conservatives' deny the science of AGW, in spite of all the evidence of a warming world around them, and the solid science behind the reason why. And when a major poltical party embraces this lack of recognition of reality, as the GOP has, there is no way that I can vote for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you jest.
> 
> Liberals are just as black and white, right and wrong on issues as cons are. Dont kid yourself into thinking that liberals are any more or less flexible.
Click to expand...


But you don't see the world as black and white, good and evil ...!  LOL.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> So now let's try it again and see if we can get a different result.
> 
> *The concept:  public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.*
> 
> My rationale for that statement:
> 
> The reason is that every dollar the government takes in taxes is a dollar that is removed from the economy and is not available for others to borrow, that is not invested to help businesses grow and expand, that is not available for higher wages and benefits, hire more people, or spend for products and services that others need to sell in order to prosper themselves.
> 
> It does not matter how important or necessary the purpose of the tax is, it still has the same effect.
> 
> Now spending is a different thing.  The cost of what the government spends for any reason is almost always x 3 because roughly two thirds of that tax dollar collected will be swallowed up just to sustain the enormous bloated government that we have.  A government with an ever increasing appetite and need to feed itself.
> 
> However, if the dollar is spent in the private sector in a way that helps keep people working and producing in the private sector, it is still a drain but is less damaging to the economy than when it spent on those who contribute nothing to the GDP on their own   It is still the most expensive way to generate economic stimulus, but if it helps others contribute to the GDP on their own, it does blunt the negative consequences a bit.
> 
> But when it is spent in the private sector in a way that only enriches a privileged few or is given to those who produce nothing, it is a much more intense drain on the economy overall.  It takes $2 out of the economy for every $1 the recipient receives and spends.
> 
> It would be great if only 1% of the people were receiving public assistance and contributing nothing.  We wouldn't even notice the cost.  But we have an almost $17 trillion dollar national debt to show for all the money that an ever increasing, more expensive, more intrusive government has spent.
> 
> And everybody feels that.
> 
> *Note:  This argument accuses nobody, refers to no ideology, refers to no poliical party, refers to no person, entity, demographic, or point of view.  It is a pure statement of fact.*
> 
> *Can any liberal refute the concept with a reasoned argument and without referring to an ideology, political party, person, entity, demographic, or point of view?   Or without veering off into a "but what about. . . .?"  Or will any liberal simply agree that the concept and rationale for it are most likely mostly true?*
> 
> I am throwing the gauntlet down here.  I'm going to say no liberal will even try.   And I will be amazed if any liberal agrees that it is mostly true.   I'm pretty sure many if not most or all conservatives will agree that it is mostly all true.
> 
> Once the concept is acknowledged - THEN it is possible to move into a discussion of how we got to this point or what the remedy might be and/or the virtues or lack thereof of public assistance.
> 
> But if we can't look at the concept itself with no righteous indignation thrown in, no useful discussion is possible.



Sigh.  Every once in a blue moon.  Govco does get something right.  Alaska purchase.  Good job.  Initial funding of the Interstate highway system, not perfect but a very good return on investment nonetheless. Some very small % of the people who receive funding for health care and education may not have had the means / time to get the health care and education without government backing and a small % of those actually turn that investment around into a good investment.  Course it's still a waste overall but libs will argue if they save one person, that is worth saving, then you can't spend enough money on the program.

Of course we all recognize that we can't afford to "waste" money but the libs don't really care, cause for the most part, it's not their money.  Thus if you are not for "wasting" unlimited amounts of money you must be for throwing grand ma off the cliff and taking food out of children's mouths.


----------



## Foxfyre

numan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.*
> 
> Do you agree with that concept or not?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I do not agree with such palaeolithic notions of economics !!
> 
> '
> *Complexity Economics*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complexity economics is the application of complexity science to the problems of economics. It studies computer simulations to gain insight into economic dynamics, and avoids the assumption that the economy is a system in equilibrium....
> More generally, complexity economics models are often used to study how non-intuitive results at the macro-level of a system can emerge from simple interactions at the micro level. This avoids assumptions of the representative agent method, which attributes outcomes in collective systems as the simple sum of the rational actions of the individuals....
> 
> The *Economic Complexity Index (ECI)* introduced by Hausmann and Hidalgo  is highly predictive of future GDP per capita growth. Hausmann, Hidalgo et al. show that the *ability of the ECI to predict future GDP per capita growth* is between 5 times and 20 times larger than the World Bank's measure of governance, the World Economic Forum's (WEF) Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) and standard measures of human capital, such as years of schooling and cognitive ability....
> 
> Several features of complex systems that deserve greater attention in economics:
> 
> 1.	*Dispersed interaction*&#8212;The economy has interaction between many dispersed, heterogeneous, agents. The action of any given agent depends upon the anticipated actions of other agents and on the aggregate state of the economy.
> 
> 2.	*No global controller*&#8212;Controls are provided by mechanisms of competition and coordination between agents. Economic actions are mediated by legal institutions, assigned roles, and shifting associations. No global entity controls interactions. Traditionally, a fictitious auctioneer has appeared in some mathematical analyses of general equilibrium models, although nobody claimed any descriptive accuracy for such models. Traditionally, many mainstream models have imposed constraints, such as requiring that budgets be balanced, and such constraints are avoided in complexity economics.
> 
> 3.	*Cross-cutting hierarchical organization*&#8212;The economy has many levels of organization and interaction. Units at any given level behaviors, actions, strategies, products typically serve as "building blocks" for constructing units at the next higher level. The overall organization is more than hierarchical, with many sorts of tangling interactions (associations, channels of communication) across levels.
> 
> 4.	*Ongoing adaptation*&#8212;Behaviors, actions, strategies, and products are revised frequently as the individual agents accumulate experience.
> 
> 5.	*Novelty niches*&#8212;Such niches are associated with new markets, new technologies, new behaviors, and new institutions. The very act of filling a niche may provide new niches. The result is ongoing novelty.
> 
> 6.	*Out-of-equilibrium dynamics*&#8212;Because new niches, new potentials, new possibilities, are continually created, the economy functions without attaining any optimum or global equilibrium. Improvements occur regularly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or is that too complicated for you, Foxy?
> .
Click to expand...


Naw.  I had enough of the economic intellectual platitudes in college along with some pretty solid stuff including being able to address a concept.  Which you have not done here.

Like Dragonlady, you dismiss it without providing any kind of rationale for why it is not true.  Nor has any other liberal on this thread.

Which is why liberalism is in such low favor with those who ARE able to understand and articulate a concept and argue for or against it.

It is so simple too.   Does the auto industry add to the GDP?  Yes or no?
Does foreign aid add to the GDP?  Yes or no?
Does the Congressional benefit package add to the GDP?  Yes or no.
Does the beef industry or chicken farming or the green chili crop in New Mexico add to the GDP?  Yes or no?
Does providing taxpayer money to those who don't work for it or earn it add to the GDP?  Yes or no?

It isn't a matter of whether EVERY person involved in such categories adds to the GDP, but whether those within the category in general do or do not add to the GDP.

And diverting the discussion to Wal-mart or Republicans or conservatives or corruption in corporate welfare yadda yadda yadda has nothing at all do do with whether these things do or do not add to the GDP.  Nor does a cut and pasted block of stuff intended to change the subject.

So simple for consevatives.  So incomprehensible for liberals so far.


----------



## numan

RKMBrown said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not his fault -- he's a Texan, and knows not what he says.
> 
> The best thing would be to expel Texas from the Federal Union. Then their potentates would no longer be able to murder our presidents, and there would be no more Texan presidents, who have -- twice!! -- led this nation into corrupt and disastrous wars.
> 
> It should be obvious that another Texan president would destroy the USA. The only sure way to prevent this is to get rid of Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> I almost wish I had an argument with any of these statements.  But alas, I must agree.  Can you please call Obama and tell him to set TX adrift?
Click to expand...

What!! Do you have to have others do _everything_ for you?

Can't you guys show a little spunk and get-up-and-go, and do it yourself !!

Why are you trying to get us to do it for you? · · 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## numan

RKMBrown said:


> Sigh.  Every once in a blue moon.  Govco does get something right.  Alaska purchase.  Good job.  Initial funding of the Interstate highway system, not perfect but a very good return on investment nonetheless.


Of course, they got the idea from Hitler's *autobahn* !!

-- Ably assisted and abetted by graft and corruption from the construction companies !!

.


----------



## Foxfyre

Okay, let's shift seats here a bit.

I am presuming that my conservative friends have not chimed in here because they know the concept I have been presenting as fact is in fact not fact.   Thanks guys, but I can take the flack when I'm wrong.  

The concept again:  *Public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.*

In fact the concept is not true because government spending is included in the GDP.   

Damn.  You give the liberals every chance in the world to jump on me and not one took the bait.  Why?   Because they apparently are unable to focus on and discuss a concept.   Not even a concept that they could use to make a conservative look foolish.  

So let's change the concept to something that even I can support honestly:

*"Public assistance to those who do not earn or work for it will not help the economy and in fact does more harm than good."*​
And THAT will in time affect the GDP negatively, but the public expenditure will increase the GDP at the time the money is spent.  Which of course explains in the face of a $17 trillion deficit why the GDP seems healthy despite the most marginal of growth.


----------



## Foxfyre

P.S.  I would have repped the first person to have called me on my erroneous statement of fact.


----------



## RKMBrown

numan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not his fault -- he's a Texan, and knows not what he says.
> 
> The best thing would be to expel Texas from the Federal Union. Then their potentates would no longer be able to murder our presidents, and there would be no more Texan presidents, who have -- twice!! -- led this nation into corrupt and disastrous wars.
> 
> It should be obvious that another Texan president would destroy the USA. The only sure way to prevent this is to get rid of Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> I almost wish I had an argument with any of these statements.  But alas, I must agree.  Can you please call Obama and tell him to set TX adrift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What!! Do you have to have others do _everything_ for you?
> 
> Can't you guys show a little spunk and get-up-and-go, and do it yourself !!
> 
> Why are you trying to get us to do it for you? · ·
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


We tried that once before.  The POTUS did not take to kindly and started a war.  I'm thinking this time we get some of you guys to put it in the ear of the POTUS that it's his idea and maybe TX won't get nuked in the process.


----------



## numan

"

Still won't touch the war profiteers and militarist parasites draining the blood of the American people, eh, Foxy?

.


----------



## RKMBrown

numan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Every once in a blue moon.  Govco does get something right.  Alaska purchase.  Good job.  Initial funding of the Interstate highway system, not perfect but a very good return on investment nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, they got the idea from Hitler's *autobahn* !!
> 
> -- Ably assisted and abetted by graft and corruption from the construction companies !!
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Was a good idea for Germany too.  Not many private corporations are willing to create a system of transportation that everyone can equally use for profit.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Okay, let's shift seats here a bit.
> 
> I am presuming that my conservative friends have not chimed in here because they know the concept I have been presenting as fact is in fact not fact.   Thanks guys, but I can take the flack when I'm wrong.
> 
> The concept again:  *Public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.*
> 
> In fact the concept is not true because government spending is included in the GDP.
> 
> Damn.  You give the liberals every chance in the world to jump on me and not one took the bait.  Why?   Because they apparently are unable to focus on and discuss a concept.   Not even a concept that they could use to make a conservative look foolish.
> 
> So let's change the concept to something that even I can support honestly:
> 
> *"Public assistance to those who do not earn or work for it will not help the economy and in fact does more harm than good."*​
> And THAT will in time affect the GDP negatively, but the public expenditure will increase the GDP at the time the money is spent.  Which of course explains in the face of a $17 trillion deficit why the GDP seems healthy despite the most marginal of growth.



I provided my best response, refuting a portion of your claim, and you ignored it.  

If any one portion of my argument is correct then your entire statement is false.  That's the way it works.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's shift seats here a bit.
> 
> I am presuming that my conservative friends have not chimed in here because they know the concept I have been presenting as fact is in fact not fact.   Thanks guys, but I can take the flack when I'm wrong.
> 
> The concept again:  *Public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.*
> 
> In fact the concept is not true because government spending is included in the GDP.
> 
> Damn.  You give the liberals every chance in the world to jump on me and not one took the bait.  Why?   Because they apparently are unable to focus on and discuss a concept.   Not even a concept that they could use to make a conservative look foolish.
> 
> So let's change the concept to something that even I can support honestly:
> 
> *"Public assistance to those who do not earn or work for it will not help the economy and in fact does more harm than good."*​
> And THAT will in time affect the GDP negatively, but the public expenditure will increase the GDP at the time the money is spent.  Which of course explains in the face of a $17 trillion deficit why the GDP seems healthy despite the most marginal of growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I provided my best response, refuting a portion of your claim, and you ignored it.
> 
> If any one portion of my argument is correct then your entire statement is false.  That's the way it works.
Click to expand...


Sorry.  I've been in and out a lot the last couple of days and must have missed it.  Could you link it for me.  If you did call me on my intentional error, rep will be forthcoming.


----------



## RKMBrown

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now let's try it again and see if we can get a different result.
> 
> *The concept:  public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.*
> 
> My rationale for that statement:
> 
> The reason is that every dollar the government takes in taxes is a dollar that is removed from the economy and is not available for others to borrow, that is not invested to help businesses grow and expand, that is not available for higher wages and benefits, hire more people, or spend for products and services that others need to sell in order to prosper themselves.
> 
> It does not matter how important or necessary the purpose of the tax is, it still has the same effect.
> 
> Now spending is a different thing.  The cost of what the government spends for any reason is almost always x 3 because roughly two thirds of that tax dollar collected will be swallowed up just to sustain the enormous bloated government that we have.  A government with an ever increasing appetite and need to feed itself.
> 
> However, if the dollar is spent in the private sector in a way that helps keep people working and producing in the private sector, it is still a drain but is less damaging to the economy than when it spent on those who contribute nothing to the GDP on their own   It is still the most expensive way to generate economic stimulus, but if it helps others contribute to the GDP on their own, it does blunt the negative consequences a bit.
> 
> But when it is spent in the private sector in a way that only enriches a privileged few or is given to those who produce nothing, it is a much more intense drain on the economy overall.  It takes $2 out of the economy for every $1 the recipient receives and spends.
> 
> It would be great if only 1% of the people were receiving public assistance and contributing nothing.  We wouldn't even notice the cost.  But we have an almost $17 trillion dollar national debt to show for all the money that an ever increasing, more expensive, more intrusive government has spent.
> 
> And everybody feels that.
> 
> *Note:  This argument accuses nobody, refers to no ideology, refers to no poliical party, refers to no person, entity, demographic, or point of view.  It is a pure statement of fact.*
> 
> *Can any liberal refute the concept with a reasoned argument and without referring to an ideology, political party, person, entity, demographic, or point of view?   Or without veering off into a "but what about. . . .?"  Or will any liberal simply agree that the concept and rationale for it are most likely mostly true?*
> 
> I am throwing the gauntlet down here.  I'm going to say no liberal will even try.   And I will be amazed if any liberal agrees that it is mostly true.   I'm pretty sure many if not most or all conservatives will agree that it is mostly all true.
> 
> Once the concept is acknowledged - THEN it is possible to move into a discussion of how we got to this point or what the remedy might be and/or the virtues or lack thereof of public assistance.
> 
> But if we can't look at the concept itself with no righteous indignation thrown in, no useful discussion is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Every once in a blue moon.  Govco does get something right.  Alaska purchase.  Good job.  Initial funding of the Interstate highway system, not perfect but a very good return on investment nonetheless. Some very small % of the people who receive funding for health care and education may not have had the means / time to get the health care and education without government backing and a small % of those actually turn that investment around into a good investment.  Course it's still a waste overall but libs will argue if they save one person, that is worth saving, then you can't spend enough money on the program.
> 
> Of course we all recognize that we can't afford to "waste" money but the libs don't really care, cause for the most part, it's not their money.  Thus if you are not for "wasting" unlimited amounts of money you must be for throwing grand ma off the cliff and taking food out of children's mouths.
Click to expand...


here...


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now let's try it again and see if we can get a different result.
> 
> *The concept:  public assistance that the recipient did not work for does not add to the GDP because it drains resources x 3 from the economy.*
> 
> My rationale for that statement:
> 
> The reason is that every dollar the government takes in taxes is a dollar that is removed from the economy and is not available for others to borrow, that is not invested to help businesses grow and expand, that is not available for higher wages and benefits, hire more people, or spend for products and services that others need to sell in order to prosper themselves.
> 
> It does not matter how important or necessary the purpose of the tax is, it still has the same effect.
> 
> Now spending is a different thing.  The cost of what the government spends for any reason is almost always x 3 because roughly two thirds of that tax dollar collected will be swallowed up just to sustain the enormous bloated government that we have.  A government with an ever increasing appetite and need to feed itself.
> 
> However, if the dollar is spent in the private sector in a way that helps keep people working and producing in the private sector, it is still a drain but is less damaging to the economy than when it spent on those who contribute nothing to the GDP on their own   It is still the most expensive way to generate economic stimulus, but if it helps others contribute to the GDP on their own, it does blunt the negative consequences a bit.
> 
> But when it is spent in the private sector in a way that only enriches a privileged few or is given to those who produce nothing, it is a much more intense drain on the economy overall.  It takes $2 out of the economy for every $1 the recipient receives and spends.
> 
> It would be great if only 1% of the people were receiving public assistance and contributing nothing.  We wouldn't even notice the cost.  But we have an almost $17 trillion dollar national debt to show for all the money that an ever increasing, more expensive, more intrusive government has spent.
> 
> And everybody feels that.
> 
> *Note:  This argument accuses nobody, refers to no ideology, refers to no poliical party, refers to no person, entity, demographic, or point of view.  It is a pure statement of fact.*
> 
> *Can any liberal refute the concept with a reasoned argument and without referring to an ideology, political party, person, entity, demographic, or point of view?   Or without veering off into a "but what about. . . .?"  Or will any liberal simply agree that the concept and rationale for it are most likely mostly true?*
> 
> I am throwing the gauntlet down here.  I'm going to say no liberal will even try.   And I will be amazed if any liberal agrees that it is mostly true.   I'm pretty sure many if not most or all conservatives will agree that it is mostly all true.
> 
> Once the concept is acknowledged - THEN it is possible to move into a discussion of how we got to this point or what the remedy might be and/or the virtues or lack thereof of public assistance.
> 
> But if we can't look at the concept itself with no righteous indignation thrown in, no useful discussion is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Every once in a blue moon.  Govco does get something right.  Alaska purchase.  Good job.  Initial funding of the Interstate highway system, not perfect but a very good return on investment nonetheless. Some very small % of the people who receive funding for health care and education may not have had the means / time to get the health care and education without government backing and a small % of those actually turn that investment around into a good investment.  Course it's still a waste overall but libs will argue if they save one person, that is worth saving, then you can't spend enough money on the program.
> 
> Of course we all recognize that we can't afford to "waste" money but the libs don't really care, cause for the most part, it's not their money.  Thus if you are not for "wasting" unlimited amounts of money you must be for throwing grand ma off the cliff and taking food out of children's mouths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> here...
Click to expand...


Okay I did see this and I didn't respond because you were not addressing the concept.  While you are no liberal by anybody's imagination, you did exactly what they did.  You changed the subject rather than address the statement  I put out there.    The concept was not whether there is appropriate use of taxpayer money or whether the government has done anything with positive results and I kept politics strictly out of it.  The concept was whether public assistance to those who don't earn or work for it adds to the GDP.  The concept had no right or wrong, virtue, or morality attached to it.

The rationale I provided though DOES address some of the pros and cons of government spending, which is a whole separate subject from the GDP.

I gave everybody every chance to gig me for a flawed concept.   Nobody did.  Everybody was too eager to focus on something less concerete, more vague, more fluid, more 'feel good' or whatever.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Every once in a blue moon.  Govco does get something right.  Alaska purchase.  Good job.  Initial funding of the Interstate highway system, not perfect but a very good return on investment nonetheless. Some very small % of the people who receive funding for health care and education may not have had the means / time to get the health care and education without government backing and a small % of those actually turn that investment around into a good investment.  Course it's still a waste overall but libs will argue if they save one person, that is worth saving, then you can't spend enough money on the program.
> 
> Of course we all recognize that we can't afford to "waste" money but the libs don't really care, cause for the most part, it's not their money.  Thus if you are not for "wasting" unlimited amounts of money you must be for throwing grand ma off the cliff and taking food out of children's mouths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay I did see this and I didn't respond because you were not addressing the concept.  While you are no liberal by anybody's imagination, you did exactly what they did.  You changed the subject rather than address the statement  I put out there.    The concept was not whether there is appropriate use of taxpayer money or whether the government has done anything with positive results.  The concept was whether public assistance to those who don't earn or work for it adds to the GDP.
Click to expand...


I'll repeat the particular part that explicitly addressed your question.  My answer, in its entirety was to explain the liberal perspective of why they believe you are wrong.  Here you go:

Some very small % of the people who receive funding for health care[, food,] and education may not have had the means / time to get the health care[, food,]  and education without government backing and a small % of those actually turn that investment around into a good investment.

There you go. If one person benefited, then turned around and became a tax payer, your statement is wrong.


----------



## Foxfyre

Oh and the Alaska purchase, the interstate highway system, and such as that, provided they are properly approved by a substantial majority of our elected representatives, has absolutely proved to be worth the expense.  But then both were material investments for the good of all, i.e. general welfare, and NOT public assistance for those who hadn't earned it or worked for it.   Any American citizen had full right to move to Alaska and carve out a niche for himself/herself there and many did.   And all Americans, rich and poor alike, benefit from the interstate highways system whether they drive on it or not--they all benefit from the reduced costs of goods and services because it is there, and also from the increased self defense capabilities we enjoy because it is there.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> here...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay I did see this and I didn't respond because you were not addressing the concept.  While you are no liberal by anybody's imagination, you did exactly what they did.  You changed the subject rather than address the statement  I put out there.    The concept was not whether there is appropriate use of taxpayer money or whether the government has done anything with positive results.  The concept was whether public assistance to those who don't earn or work for it adds to the GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll repeat the particular part that explicitly addressed your question.  My answer, in its entirety was to explain the liberal perspective of why they believe you are wrong.  Here you go:
> 
> Some very small % of the people who receive funding for health care[, food,] and education may not have had the means / time to get the health care[, food,]  and education without government backing and a small % of those actually turn that investment around into a good investment.
> 
> There you go. If one person benefited, then turned around and became a tax payer, your statement is wrong.
Click to expand...


The statement had nothing to do with whether people turned the money around into a good investment.  It had to do with whether public assistance increased the GDP.    I provided a rationale for my argument which, by the way, DOES support the accurate statement.   The flawed concept I gave everybody to discuss can't be addressed by my rationale because it is a totally incorrect statement.   Which you apparently missed.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> Okay I did see this and I didn't respond because you were not addressing the concept.  While you are no liberal by anybody's imagination, you did exactly what they did.  You changed the subject rather than address the statement  I put out there.    The concept was not whether there is appropriate use of taxpayer money or whether the government has done anything with positive results and I kept politics strictly out of it.  The concept was whether public assistance to those who don't earn or work for it adds to the GDP.  The concept had no right or wrong, virtue, or morality attached to it.
> 
> The rationale I provided though DOES address some of the pros and cons of government spending, which is a whole separate subject from the GDP.
> 
> I gave everybody every chance to gig me for a flawed concept.   Nobody did.  Everybody was too eager to focus on something less concerete, more vague, more fluid, more 'feel good' or whatever.



Murray Rothbard slammed Keynesian guru John Kenneth Galbraith on this back in the 60's.  The basic logic being that IF the concept of turns has merit in regard to infusing currency into an economy, then by extension, the removal of currency will likewise result in turns.

You are addressing the same mechanism here. The left claims that deficit spending will create economic activity in excess of the initial currency infused (note that I'm careful to say currency, and not capital, because Keynesian stimulants add no actual capital.) 

Rothbard competently demonstrated that removing currency from the market to fund welfare payments, would trigger an identical set of factors and REDUCE economic activity beyond the amount of currency removed. In this way, every dollar taken from productive sectors to give to unproductive people, resulted in a loss of economic activity at each turn, rendering the classic Keynesian 1.56 in three turns ratio, into a loss of activity.

No doubt Lord Keynes was spinning in his grave, Galbraith was left stuttering - a Rothbard specialty.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay I did see this and I didn't respond because you were not addressing the concept.  While you are no liberal by anybody's imagination, you did exactly what they did.  You changed the subject rather than address the statement  I put out there.    The concept was not whether there is appropriate use of taxpayer money or whether the government has done anything with positive results.  The concept was whether public assistance to those who don't earn or work for it adds to the GDP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll repeat the particular part that explicitly addressed your question.  My answer, in its entirety was to explain the liberal perspective of why they believe you are wrong.  Here you go:
> 
> Some very small % of the people who receive funding for health care[, food,] and education may not have had the means / time to get the health care[, food,]  and education without government backing and a small % of those actually turn that investment around into a good investment.
> 
> There you go. If one person benefited, then turned around and became a tax payer, your statement is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The statement had nothing to do with whether people turned the money around into a good investment.  It had to do with whether public assistance increased the GDP.    I provided a rationale for my argument which, by the way, DOES support the accurate statement.   The flawed concept I gave everybody to discuss can't be addressed by my rationale because it is a totally incorrect statement.   Which you apparently missed.
Click to expand...


I have attempted to explain how, over time, public assistance in many forms can in fact increase GDP.  I may have missed the subtlety of your series of questions.  I may also be too lazy to look for intentional flaws in your statements.  Time for more


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Oh and the Alaska purchase, the interstate highway system, and such as that, provided they are properly approved by a substantial majority of our elected representatives, has absolutely proved to be worth the expense.  But then both were material investments for the good of all, i.e. general welfare, and NOT public assistance for those who hadn't earned it or worked for it.   Any American citizen had full right to move to Alaska and carve out a niche for himself/herself there and many did.   And all Americans, rich and poor alike, benefit from the interstate highways system whether they drive on it or not--they all benefit from the reduced costs of goods and services because it is there, and also from the increased self defense capabilities we enjoy because it is there.



Any liberal worth his salt will explain to you that keeping the rifraf in school or fat and dumb on the couch is better than them coming to your house and shooting you for your stuff.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> Any liberal worth his salt will explain to you that keeping the rifraf in school or fat and dumb on the couch is better than them coming to your house and shooting you for your stuff.



Of course the ruling elite of the left - the George Soros and Aljazeera Gore types, aren't concerned with the riff raff coming to my house, they worry that the peasant class will rise up and revolt against the rule of our monied aristocracy.

Quick, the functional difference between Bernie Maddoff and George Soros is? 

If you're stumped, I'll give you a clue - there isn't any.

Most of the left elite are simply criminals sanctioned by the state.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay I did see this and I didn't respond because you were not addressing the concept.  While you are no liberal by anybody's imagination, you did exactly what they did.  You changed the subject rather than address the statement  I put out there.    The concept was not whether there is appropriate use of taxpayer money or whether the government has done anything with positive results and I kept politics strictly out of it.  The concept was whether public assistance to those who don't earn or work for it adds to the GDP.  The concept had no right or wrong, virtue, or morality attached to it.
> 
> The rationale I provided though DOES address some of the pros and cons of government spending, which is a whole separate subject from the GDP.
> 
> I gave everybody every chance to gig me for a flawed concept.   Nobody did.  Everybody was too eager to focus on something less concerete, more vague, more fluid, more 'feel good' or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murray Rothbard slammed Keynesian guru John Kenneth Galbraith on this back in the 60's.  The basic logic being that IF the concept of turns has merit in regard to infusing currency into an economy, then by extension, the removal of currency will likewise result in turns.
> 
> You are addressing the same mechanism here. The left claims that deficit spending will create economic activity in excess of the initial currency infused (note that I'm careful to say currency, and not capital, because Keynesian stimulants add no actual capital.)
> 
> Rothbard competently demonstrated that removing currency from the market to fund welfare payments, would trigger an identical set of factors and REDUCE economic activity beyond the amount of currency removed. In this way, every dollar taken from productive sectors to give to unproductive people, resulted in a loss of economic activity at each turn, rendering the classic Keynesian 1.56 in three turns ratio, into a loss of activity.
> 
> No doubt Lord Keynes was spinning in his grave, Galbraith was left stuttering - a Rothbard specialty.
Click to expand...


Bravo!!!   Keynes sometimes gets a bad rap, though, because his concept of economic stimulus via government spending was always targeted at necessary infrastructure, etc. that the people needed anyway.  It was not public assistance nor bridges to nowhere or corporate subsidies that he was advocating.

His theory was that a short term reasonabile infusion of government money that would put people to work and generate economic activitiy could have a sustainable ripple effect and jump start a stalled economy.   He was quite clear though that the infusion of currency into the system must not be so excessive that the economic activity generated would not quickly restore the money to the public treasury.

THAT is where Keynes and most liberals part company.  Most liberals don't seem to care about deficits and national debts and seem to look at the government as an unlimited, undepletable source of resources capable of producing benevolence for all.  The deficit is something to accuse Republicans with, but otherwise of no consequence whatsoever.

Most liberals  can't seem to make the connection of the bounty available to help the unfortunate of society and the source that produces the resources that make it possible.  And they cannot seem to see how a steady flow  from the haves to the have nots is not sustainable indefinitely. 

That "Square Deal" way back then opened the gates to encourage government to exist for its own benefit.  And those now in government bribe the masses with false promises of benevolence and security and expect to have theirs and be long gone before it all hits the fan and the house of cards they have built collapses.  

Yes, that is the one event I would change in history.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and the Alaska purchase, the interstate highway system, and such as that, provided they are properly approved by a substantial majority of our elected representatives, has absolutely proved to be worth the expense.  But then both were material investments for the good of all, i.e. general welfare, and NOT public assistance for those who hadn't earned it or worked for it.   Any American citizen had full right to move to Alaska and carve out a niche for himself/herself there and many did.   And all Americans, rich and poor alike, benefit from the interstate highways system whether they drive on it or not--they all benefit from the reduced costs of goods and services because it is there, and also from the increased self defense capabilities we enjoy because it is there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any liberal worth his salt will explain to you that keeping the rifraf in school or fat and dumb on the couch is better than them coming to your house and shooting you for your stuff.
Click to expand...


But only a liberal would think that the government paying people to be riffraff in schools to ensure nobody gets an education there and/or be fat and dumb on the couch would not encourage more riffraff and fat/dumb people.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and the Alaska purchase, the interstate highway system, and such as that, provided they are properly approved by a substantial majority of our elected representatives, has absolutely proved to be worth the expense.  But then both were material investments for the good of all, i.e. general welfare, and NOT public assistance for those who hadn't earned it or worked for it.   Any American citizen had full right to move to Alaska and carve out a niche for himself/herself there and many did.   And all Americans, rich and poor alike, benefit from the interstate highways system whether they drive on it or not--they all benefit from the reduced costs of goods and services because it is there, and also from the increased self defense capabilities we enjoy because it is there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any liberal worth his salt will explain to you that keeping the rifraf in school or fat and dumb on the couch is better than them coming to your house and shooting you for your stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But only a liberal would think that the government paying people to be riffraff in schools to ensure nobody gets an education there and/or be fat and dumb on the couch would not encourage more riffraff and fat/dumb people.
Click to expand...

Thus my follow up... which was that if you save one person, that is worth saving, then it's worth spending any amount.  Or do you want to throw grand ma off the cliff and refuse to save the child?  Lib logic is grand in it's circular nature and infallible.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any liberal worth his salt will explain to you that keeping the rifraf in school or fat and dumb on the couch is better than them coming to your house and shooting you for your stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But only a liberal would think that the government paying people to be riffraff in schools to ensure nobody gets an education there and/or be fat and dumb on the couch would not encourage more riffraff and fat/dumb people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thus my follow up... which was that if you save one person, that is worth saving, then it's worth spending any amount.  Or do you want to throw grand ma off the cliff and refuse to save the child?
Click to expand...


Ah now we're wandering into the murky world of situation ethics yet.  Are you SURE you are not liberal?  

The principle is that the role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives in freedom meaning we are free to organize whatever sort of society we wish to have.  Is either grandma or the child more important than the welfare of the whole nation?  But if we do not recognize and protect grandma's rights or the child's rights, then nobody has rights.  But rights do not extend to demand that others provide anything for us.

Society must choose which to save, both to save, or both to fend for themselves.  But it is not given to the federal government to choose or decide or to provide for anybody.  If the federal government is given license to save the one at the expense of the many, then there are no rights and there  is no freedom for anyone.  But a free people can otherwise organize the society it wants from the most anarchistic to the most communistic as it prefers.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But only a liberal would think that the government paying people to be riffraff in schools to ensure nobody gets an education there and/or be fat and dumb on the couch would not encourage more riffraff and fat/dumb people.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus my follow up... which was that if you save one person, that is worth saving, then it's worth spending any amount.  Or do you want to throw grand ma off the cliff and refuse to save the child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah now we're wandering into the murky world of situation ethics yet.  Are you SURE you are not liberal?
> 
> The principle is that the role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives in freedom meaning we are free to organize whatever sort of society we wish to have.  Is either grandma or the child more important than the welfare of the whole nation?
> 
> Society must choose which to save, both to save, or both to fend for themselves.  But it is not given to the federal government to choose or decide.  If the federal government is given license to save the one at the expense of the many, then there is no freedom for anyone.
Click to expand...

What gives you the right to choose who lives or dies?  What are you some sort of facist? If we would simply go back to the tax rates of the 1950s then we'd have plenty of money to save grand ma and the rich would be just fine.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus my follow up... which was that if you save one person, that is worth saving, then it's worth spending any amount.  Or do you want to throw grand ma off the cliff and refuse to save the child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah now we're wandering into the murky world of situation ethics yet.  Are you SURE you are not liberal?
> 
> The principle is that the role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives in freedom meaning we are free to organize whatever sort of society we wish to have.  Is either grandma or the child more important than the welfare of the whole nation?
> 
> Society must choose which to save, both to save, or both to fend for themselves.  But it is not given to the federal government to choose or decide.  If the federal government is given license to save the one at the expense of the many, then there is no freedom for anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What gives you the right to choose who lives or dies?  What are you some sort of facist? If we would simply go back to the tax rates of the 1950s then we'd have plenty of money to save grand ma and the rich would be just fine.
Click to expand...


Ah and now we wander from situation ethics into the absurdia of straw man and unstated assumptions.   I'm not even going to dignify this with an answer.


----------



## westwall

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus my follow up... which was that if you save one person, that is worth saving, then it's worth spending any amount.  Or do you want to throw grand ma off the cliff and refuse to save the child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah now we're wandering into the murky world of situation ethics yet.  Are you SURE you are not liberal?
> 
> The principle is that the role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives in freedom meaning we are free to organize whatever sort of society we wish to have.  Is either grandma or the child more important than the welfare of the whole nation?
> 
> Society must choose which to save, both to save, or both to fend for themselves.  But it is not given to the federal government to choose or decide.  If the federal government is given license to save the one at the expense of the many, then there is no freedom for anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What gives you the right to choose who lives or dies?  What are you some sort of facist? If we would simply go back to the tax rates of the 1950s then we'd have plenty of money to save grand ma and the rich would be just fine.
Click to expand...






Do we get to have the same small government and the same tax loopholes as well?


----------



## westwall

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus my follow up... which was that if you save one person, that is worth saving, then it's worth spending any amount.  Or do you want to throw grand ma off the cliff and refuse to save the child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah now we're wandering into the murky world of situation ethics yet.  Are you SURE you are not liberal?
> 
> The principle is that the role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives in freedom meaning we are free to organize whatever sort of society we wish to have.  Is either grandma or the child more important than the welfare of the whole nation?
> 
> Society must choose which to save, both to save, or both to fend for themselves.  But it is not given to the federal government to choose or decide.  If the federal government is given license to save the one at the expense of the many, then there is no freedom for anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What gives you the right to choose who lives or dies?  What are you some sort of facist? If we would simply go back to the tax rates of the 1950s then we'd have plenty of money to save grand ma and the rich would be just fine.
Click to expand...







We don't.  The liberals running this country do....Of course with enough public outcry they can be forced to change thei minds...for the moment.  Let O care get into full swing though and the liberals will be letting THEIR friends and family have the treatment they need...but you...you're screwed...  That's how bureaucratic medical care operates.

"Doctors told his family that Anthony has less than six months to live, but he couldn't be put on the transplant list because of a history of non-compliance.

They said they dont have any evidence that he would take his medicine or that he would go to his follow-ups, said Melencia Hamilton, Anthonys mother.

Hamilton told Thomas that the transplant is the only fix for her sons enlarged heart.

Keepers of the nations transplant list have strict guidelines about who qualifies, and while doctors didnt specify the reason, family friends toldThomas theyve been told its partly because Anthony has had low grades and trouble with the law."

Dying teen added to heart transplant list after family's plea | www.wsbtv.com

Or how about this case????

PORTLAND, Ore.  Some terminally ill patients in Oregon who turned to their state for health care were denied treatment and offered doctor-assisted suicide instead, a proposal some experts have called a "chilling" corruption of medical ethics.


Since the spread of his prostate cancer, 53-year-old Randy Stroup of Dexter, Ore., has been in a fight for his life. Uninsured and unable to pay for expensive chemotherapy, he applied to Oregon's state-run health plan for help.


Lane Individual Practice Association (LIPA), which administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County, responded to Stroup's request with a letter saying the state would not cover Stroup's pricey treatment, but would pay for the cost of physician-assisted suicide.


Read more: Oregon Offers Terminal Patients Doctor-Assisted Suicide Instead of Medical Care | Fox News

So, as you can see the liberals ALLREADY feel they have the right to dictate who lives and who dies....


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah now we're wandering into the murky world of situation ethics yet.  Are you SURE you are not liberal?
> 
> The principle is that the role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives in freedom meaning we are free to organize whatever sort of society we wish to have.  Is either grandma or the child more important than the welfare of the whole nation?
> 
> Society must choose which to save, both to save, or both to fend for themselves.  But it is not given to the federal government to choose or decide.  If the federal government is given license to save the one at the expense of the many, then there is no freedom for anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the right to choose who lives or dies?  What are you some sort of facist? If we would simply go back to the tax rates of the 1950s then we'd have plenty of money to save grand ma and the rich would be just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah and now we wander from situation ethics into the absurdia of straw man and unstated assumptions.   I'm not even going to dignify this with an answer.
Click to expand...


God help me I just won an argument using absurd liberal arguments. Please forgive me lord....


----------



## RKMBrown

westwall said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah now we're wandering into the murky world of situation ethics yet.  Are you SURE you are not liberal?
> 
> The principle is that the role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives in freedom meaning we are free to organize whatever sort of society we wish to have.  Is either grandma or the child more important than the welfare of the whole nation?
> 
> Society must choose which to save, both to save, or both to fend for themselves.  But it is not given to the federal government to choose or decide.  If the federal government is given license to save the one at the expense of the many, then there is no freedom for anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the right to choose who lives or dies?  What are you some sort of facist? If we would simply go back to the tax rates of the 1950s then we'd have plenty of money to save grand ma and the rich would be just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't.  The liberals running this country do....Of course with enough public outcry they can be forced to change thei minds...for the moment.  Let O care get into full swing though and the liberals will be letting THEIR friends and family have the treatment they need...but you...you're screwed...  That's how bureaucratic medical care operates.
> 
> "Doctors told his family that Anthony has less than six months to live, but he couldn't be put on the transplant list because of a history of non-compliance.
> 
> They said they dont have any evidence that he would take his medicine or that he would go to his follow-ups, said Melencia Hamilton, Anthonys mother.
> 
> Hamilton told Thomas that the transplant is the only fix for her sons enlarged heart.
> 
> Keepers of the nations transplant list have strict guidelines about who qualifies, and while doctors didnt specify the reason, family friends toldThomas theyve been told its partly because Anthony has had low grades and trouble with the law."
> 
> Dying teen added to heart transplant list after family's plea | www.wsbtv.com
> 
> Or how about this case????
> 
> PORTLAND, Ore.  Some terminally ill patients in Oregon who turned to their state for health care were denied treatment and offered doctor-assisted suicide instead, a proposal some experts have called a "chilling" corruption of medical ethics.
> 
> 
> Since the spread of his prostate cancer, 53-year-old Randy Stroup of Dexter, Ore., has been in a fight for his life. Uninsured and unable to pay for expensive chemotherapy, he applied to Oregon's state-run health plan for help.
> 
> 
> Lane Individual Practice Association (LIPA), which administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County, responded to Stroup's request with a letter saying the state would not cover Stroup's pricey treatment, but would pay for the cost of physician-assisted suicide.
> 
> 
> Read more: Oregon Offers Terminal Patients Doctor-Assisted Suicide Instead of Medical Care | Fox News
> 
> So, as you can see the liberals ALLREADY feel they have the right to dictate who lives and who dies....
Click to expand...


Wrong, it's the republicans' fault for not fully funding the health care programs that the democrats wanted.  

Someone stop me. please!


----------



## westwall

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the right to choose who lives or dies?  What are you some sort of facist? If we would simply go back to the tax rates of the 1950s then we'd have plenty of money to save grand ma and the rich would be just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah and now we wander from situation ethics into the absurdia of straw man and unstated assumptions.   I'm not even going to dignify this with an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God help me I just won an argument using absurd liberal arguments. Please forgive me lord....
Click to expand...








You consider the refusal of someone to engage in absurd discussion a victory?  You are dwelling very close to troll land there bucko, very close...


----------



## RKMBrown

westwall said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah and now we wander from situation ethics into the absurdia of straw man and unstated assumptions.   I'm not even going to dignify this with an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God help me I just won an argument using absurd liberal arguments. Please forgive me lord....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You consider the refusal of someone to engage in absurd discussion a victory?  You are dwelling very close to troll land there bucko, very close...
Click to expand...


I think you missed the part where I said I (a decidedly constitutional conservative) would make the fallacious liberal arguments for the liberals since they are keeping quiet.  My tongue is firmly implanted in my cheek.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> God help me I just won an argument using absurd liberal arguments. Please forgive me lord....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You consider the refusal of someone to engage in absurd discussion a victory?  You are dwelling very close to troll land there bucko, very close...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you missed the part where I said I (a decidedly constitutional conservative) would make the fallacious liberal arguments for the liberals since they are keeping quiet.  My tongue is firmly implanted in my cheek.
Click to expand...


And only a liberal would declare victory via what was clearly intended to be an uncomplimentary dismissal.


----------



## westwall

RKMBrown said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the right to choose who lives or dies?  What are you some sort of facist? If we would simply go back to the tax rates of the 1950s then we'd have plenty of money to save grand ma and the rich would be just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't.  The liberals running this country do....Of course with enough public outcry they can be forced to change thei minds...for the moment.  Let O care get into full swing though and the liberals will be letting THEIR friends and family have the treatment they need...but you...you're screwed...  That's how bureaucratic medical care operates.
> 
> "Doctors told his family that Anthony has less than six months to live, but he couldn't be put on the transplant list because of a history of non-compliance.
> 
> They said they dont have any evidence that he would take his medicine or that he would go to his follow-ups, said Melencia Hamilton, Anthonys mother.
> 
> Hamilton told Thomas that the transplant is the only fix for her sons enlarged heart.
> 
> Keepers of the nations transplant list have strict guidelines about who qualifies, and while doctors didnt specify the reason, family friends toldThomas theyve been told its partly because Anthony has had low grades and trouble with the law."
> 
> Dying teen added to heart transplant list after family's plea | www.wsbtv.com
> 
> Or how about this case????
> 
> PORTLAND, Ore.  Some terminally ill patients in Oregon who turned to their state for health care were denied treatment and offered doctor-assisted suicide instead, a proposal some experts have called a "chilling" corruption of medical ethics.
> 
> 
> Since the spread of his prostate cancer, 53-year-old Randy Stroup of Dexter, Ore., has been in a fight for his life. Uninsured and unable to pay for expensive chemotherapy, he applied to Oregon's state-run health plan for help.
> 
> 
> Lane Individual Practice Association (LIPA), which administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County, responded to Stroup's request with a letter saying the state would not cover Stroup's pricey treatment, but would pay for the cost of physician-assisted suicide.
> 
> 
> Read more: Oregon Offers Terminal Patients Doctor-Assisted Suicide Instead of Medical Care | Fox News
> 
> So, as you can see the liberals ALLREADY feel they have the right to dictate who lives and who dies....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, it's the republicans' fault for not fully funding the health care programs that the democrats wanted.
> 
> Someone stop me. please!
Click to expand...







Why on Earth would we stop a troll outing himself?  Spout on troll, spout on!


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You consider the refusal of someone to engage in absurd discussion a victory?  You are dwelling very close to troll land there bucko, very close...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you missed the part where I said I (a decidedly constitutional conservative) would make the fallacious liberal arguments for the liberals since they are keeping quiet.  My tongue is firmly implanted in my cheek.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And only a liberal would declare victory via what was clearly intended to be an uncomplimentary dismissal.
Click to expand...


I've got this liberal thing down pat.  I should, have been arguing against them for decades.  Hell I was arguing against liberals during the BBS days.


----------



## American_Jihad

Stupid, bigoted, phobic, evil and greedy are, of course, the only explanations that the Modern Liberal can or does offer to explain why Right-Thinking people dont join him in support of his latest godless, anti-scientific, utterly infantile and invariably failed schemes. In fact, take a second and try to think of a single argument that the Modern Liberal offers regarding any issue that doesnt consist in its entirety of were right because (our grandiose self-esteem tells us) were morally and intellectually superior, and anyone who disagrees with us is (1) stupid, (2) bigoted, (3) phobic, (4) greedy, or (5) evil. The truth is you cant name one. Not one. Seriously, try it.

Evan Sayet: How Modern Liberals Brainwash People Into Hating America | Independent Journal Review


----------



## Pogo




----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


>



Brilliant post, as always slugo....


----------



## numan

RKMBrown said:


> Any liberal worth his salt will explain to you that keeping the rifraf in school or fat and dumb on the couch is better than them coming to your house and shooting you for your stuff.


Well, well -- it's rare for small-minded, selfish enemies of their country to show that much intelligence and realism !!

Little as it is.

Congratulations, Tex !!

.


----------



## RKMBrown

numan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any liberal worth his salt will explain to you that keeping the rifraf in school or fat and dumb on the couch is better than them coming to your house and shooting you for your stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, well -- it's rare for small-minded, selfish enemies of their country to show that much intelligence and realism !!
> 
> Little as it is.
> 
> Congratulations, Tex !!
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That's the thing with liberal arguments, they are brutally easy to make. Even a simple cow poke like me can spout out every single one of the liberal arguments and make em seem like they have some sort of redeeming value.  Hell I could probably go into politics in a democrat district and win hands down.  Where's my pedestal!!  Course, I don't believe the liberal arguments for a second, but why should that stop me from leading masses off the cliff for my own gain?


----------



## Wolfsister77

RKMBrown said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any liberal worth his salt will explain to you that keeping the rifraf in school or fat and dumb on the couch is better than them coming to your house and shooting you for your stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, well -- it's rare for small-minded, selfish enemies of their country to show that much intelligence and realism !!
> 
> Little as it is.
> 
> Congratulations, Tex !!
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the thing with liberal arguments, they are brutally easy to make. Even a simple cow poke like me can spout out every single one of the liberal arguments and make em seem like they have some sort of redeeming value.  Hell I could probably go into politics in a democrat district and win hands down.  Where's my pedestal!!  Course, I don't believe the liberal arguments for a second, but why should that stop me from leading masses off the cliff for my own gain?
Click to expand...


That's the thing with people like you on messageboards-universally disliked by both sides. Quite an accomplishment.


----------



## RKMBrown

Wolfsister77 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, well -- it's rare for small-minded, selfish enemies of their country to show that much intelligence and realism !!
> 
> Little as it is.
> 
> Congratulations, Tex !!
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the thing with liberal arguments, they are brutally easy to make. Even a simple cow poke like me can spout out every single one of the liberal arguments and make em seem like they have some sort of redeeming value.  Hell I could probably go into politics in a democrat district and win hands down.  Where's my pedestal!!  Course, I don't believe the liberal arguments for a second, but why should that stop me from leading masses off the cliff for my own gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the thing with people like you on messageboards-universally disliked by both sides. Quite an accomplishment.
Click to expand...


Thanks.  I take great pride in being a stalwart for constitutional conservatism.  I fully expect the collection of authoritarians of both parties to attack with prejudice.  ROFL.... What a dipshit. Negging me for helping a fellow conservative by playing the part of liberal for argument sake.  WOW  [MENTION=38281]Wolfsister77[/MENTION]  you need to get over yourself.


----------



## Wolfsister77

RKMBrown said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the thing with liberal arguments, they are brutally easy to make. Even a simple cow poke like me can spout out every single one of the liberal arguments and make em seem like they have some sort of redeeming value.  Hell I could probably go into politics in a democrat district and win hands down.  Where's my pedestal!!  Course, I don't believe the liberal arguments for a second, but why should that stop me from leading masses off the cliff for my own gain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the thing with people like you on messageboards-universally disliked by both sides. Quite an accomplishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.  I take great pride in being a stalwart for constitutional conservatism.  I fully expect the collection of authoritarians of both parties to attack with prejudice.  ROFL.... What a dipshit. Negging me for helping a fellow conservative by playing the part of liberal for argument sake.  WOW  [MENTION=38281]Wolfsister77[/MENTION]  you need to get over yourself.
Click to expand...


You'll live.


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any liberal worth his salt will explain to you that keeping the rifraf in school or fat and dumb on the couch is better than them coming to your house and shooting you for your stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, well -- it's rare for small-minded, selfish enemies of their country to show that much intelligence and realism !!
> 
> Little as it is.
> 
> Congratulations, Tex !!
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the thing with liberal arguments, they are brutally easy to make. Even a simple cow poke like me can spout out every single one of the liberal arguments and make em seem like they have some sort of redeeming value.  Hell I could probably go into politics in a democrat district and win hands down.  Where's my pedestal!!  Course, I don't believe the liberal arguments for a second, but why should that stop me from leading masses off the cliff for my own gain?
Click to expand...


All you are revealing is you, not liberals. The only calibration each of us have is ourselves. You don't believe the liberal arguments for a second because in your mind if you can't care about other people, then no one else _really_ can. To believe otherwise would cause self examination and growth, something conservatives are incapable of.


Have you ever heard of a bleeding heart Republican?
Paul Craig Roberts - the father of Reaganomics


----------



## Foxfyre

Actually, once I caught on to what RKM was doing, it was rather clever.  And yeah, a few here do mean well, but it doesn't hurt to lighten up a little bit either sometimes.  But it does take skill to get ALL sides on your case, RKM.  

In a former existance on another board a long time ago, the board owner and administrator, himself a really bright liberal, one of the rare ones who COULD hold his own in an argument without ever saying a disparaging word to or about anybody, started a thread with a challenge.  Everybody had to step out of their own ideology and argue the side of the opposition.

Of course those who do or have done formal debate are comfortable in such a role, but for most it was really difficult.   He served as thread judge and participated in the discussion, but had the job of pointing to those who stepped out of character and argued their own point of view instead of the opposition.  Those who simply were unable to grasp the concept were requested to stop posting in the thread and yield to those making the effort.

It was a fascinating exercise, and I was impressed that we had about eight or ten members who could do it really well.  But it was interesting, in this limited and quite unscientific experiment,  that, except for the administrator, those who got it were ALL conservatives.   The liberals just couldn't quite get the hang of it.  And a number of the conservatives couldn't either. 

I suspect RKM would have done very well, however.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Most of his Liberal arguments were lame at best. He should of made an intelligent point on the Liberal side of things to be truly clever. And yes, that would be an interesting experiment to try. I'll bet it would be difficult for people on both sides to step outside their shell and argue the other side intelligently.


----------



## RKMBrown

Wolfsister77 said:


> Most of his Liberal arguments were lame at best. He should of made an intelligent point on the Liberal side of things to be truly clever. And yes, that would be an interesting experiment to try. I'll bet it would be difficult for people on both sides to step outside their shell and argue the other side intelligently.


Both sides?  I'm a constitutional conservative.  I don't side with either of the two decidedly authoritarian parties.   I'm make arguments for a living.  It's more fun when it's not easy.


----------



## Wolfsister77

I consider it more interesting and challenging when someone is an intelligent debater. You didn't really make the Liberal case and you were doing it to poke fun at the Liberal side of things. Of course, I will give you credit for fooling a few folks.


----------



## skye

People hate liberals -among other things-  because they don't have a sense of humour whatsoever when it comes at making fun of them..... just look at what happened with the rodeo clown.

OMG a   clown with an Obama face!!!!! Look out !!!!!the end is near!!!!!


----------



## Wolfsister77

Do Conservatives have a sense of humor when they are poked fun at?


----------



## RKMBrown

Wolfsister77 said:


> I consider it more interesting and challenging when someone is an intelligent debater. You didn't really make the Liberal case and you were doing it to poke fun at the Liberal side of things. Of course, I will give you credit for fooling a few folks.



Yeah I was not "trying" to make the case or trying to fool anyone.  That latter was a surprise gift.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wolfsister77 said:


> Most of his Liberal arguments were lame at best. He should of made an intelligent point on the Liberal side of things to be truly clever.



But that would be unrealistic and tip the reader off that the point was not made by a leftist.



> And yes, that would be an interesting experiment to try. I'll bet it would be difficult for people on both sides to step outside their shell and argue the other side intelligently.



One side is based on a rational and intelligent analysis of events and factors, and the other side is the left.


----------



## Wolfsister77

You opinion of Liberals is duly noted. I frankly get bored with all the Liberal bashing. If you Conservatives just want to sit and talk amongst yourselves and pat each other on the back, by all means have fun. Right-wing circle jerks are boring just as left-wing ones are.


----------



## Foxfyre

Wolfsister77 said:


> You opinion of Liberals is duly noted. I frankly get bored with all the Liberal bashing. If you Conservatives just want to sit and talk amongst yourselves and pat each other on the back, by all means have fun. Right-wing circle jerks are boring just as left-wing ones are.



In all due respect Wolfsister, I love you dearly, but the thread was started by a dedicated left wing liberal and the title is "Why do people hate liberals?"   Many if not most posting on the thread have been addressing the thread topic.   Don't blame us.  Blame Saigon.  

And I think to the credit of us conservatives, not all but most have refused to focus on 'hating liberals' and reject that concept as we don't hate people who happen to be liberals.  But we do hate the negative consequences of liberalism.   It is an honest and could be productive topic for a message board, most especially for those who do blame liberalism for many ills of society that we have today.

Liberals can be lovable and great folks.
Liberalism not so much.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Foxfyre said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You opinion of Liberals is duly noted. I frankly get bored with all the Liberal bashing. If you Conservatives just want to sit and talk amongst yourselves and pat each other on the back, by all means have fun. Right-wing circle jerks are boring just as left-wing ones are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all due respect Wolfsister, I love you dearly, but the thread was started by a dedicated left wing liberal and the title is "Why do people hate liberals?"   Many if not most posting on the thread have been addressing the thread topic.   Don't blame us.  Blame Saigon.
> 
> And I think to the credit of us conservatives, not all but most have refused to focus on 'hating liberals' and reject that concept as we don't hate people who happen to be liberals.  But we do hate the negative consequences of liberalism.   It is an honest and could be productive topic for a message board, most especially for those who do blame liberalism for many ills of society that we have today.
> 
> Liberals can be lovable and great folks.
> Liberalism not so much.
Click to expand...


Love you too and I appreciate you are trying to have an intelligent conversation and I know Saigon was the first to use the word hate.

To keep it short and sweet I don't think either a Liberal or a Conservative way of dealing with the issues this country faces is worthy of hate. There is merit to both approaches and some serious problems with both as well. 

Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time for a lot of examples with great detail at the moment but I'm more than willing to discuss it in greater detail at a later time.

Have a great day!!


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wolfsister77 said:


> You opinion of Liberals is duly noted. I frankly get bored with all the Liberal bashing. If you Conservatives just want to sit and talk amongst yourselves and pat each other on the back, by all means have fun. Right-wing circle jerks are boring just as left-wing ones are.



My opinion is of leftists.

I am a liberal.

Obama sure the fuck ain't...


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of his Liberal arguments were lame at best. He should of made an intelligent point on the Liberal side of things to be truly clever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that would be unrealistic and tip the reader off that the point was not made by a leftist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, that would be an interesting experiment to try. I'll bet it would be difficult for people on both sides to step outside their shell and argue the other side intelligently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One side is based on a rational and intelligent analysis of events and factors, and the other side is the left.
Click to expand...


I could do it.  I could make the argument for the liberal side using conservative statements.

For example:

Unemployment.  I would argue, correctly, that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home.  You see, most of the unemployed actually slow everyone down at work.  Thus paying them to stay home is a net increase in productivity.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> I could do it.  I could make the argument for the liberal side using conservative statements.
> 
> For example:
> 
> Unemployment.  I would argue, correctly, that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home.  You see, most of the unemployed actually slow everyone down at work.  Thus paying them to stay home is a net increase in productivity.



*Intelligent* argument!

You must operate within the parameters of the challenge.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could do it.  I could make the argument for the liberal side using conservative statements.
> 
> For example:
> 
> Unemployment.  I would argue, correctly, that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home.  You see, most of the unemployed actually slow everyone down at work.  Thus paying them to stay home is a net increase in productivity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Intelligent* argument!
> 
> You must operate within the parameters of the challenge.
Click to expand...


I forgot.  What are the challenge rules? Make the argument for the left that is unintelligent?  If I do that I'll just get negged again.  Should I make an unintelligent conservative argument for the left side?   I'm getting confused.


----------



## Wolfsister77

RKMBrown said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of his Liberal arguments were lame at best. He should of made an intelligent point on the Liberal side of things to be truly clever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that would be unrealistic and tip the reader off that the point was not made by a leftist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, that would be an interesting experiment to try. I'll bet it would be difficult for people on both sides to step outside their shell and argue the other side intelligently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One side is based on a rational and intelligent analysis of events and factors, and the other side is the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could do it.  I could make the argument for the liberal side using conservative statements.
> 
> For example:
> 
> Unemployment.  I would argue, correctly, that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home.  You see, most of the unemployed actually slow everyone down at work.  Thus paying them to stay home is a net increase in productivity.
Click to expand...


Makes no sense and you have no proof.


----------



## RKMBrown

Wolfsister77 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that would be unrealistic and tip the reader off that the point was not made by a leftist.
> 
> 
> 
> One side is based on a rational and intelligent analysis of events and factors, and the other side is the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could do it.  I could make the argument for the liberal side using conservative statements.
> 
> For example:
> 
> Unemployment.  I would argue, correctly, that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home.  You see, most of the unemployed actually slow everyone down at work.  Thus paying them to stay home is a net increase in productivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes no sense and you have no proof.
Click to expand...


Keeping employees on that are a net negative is what makes no sense.

Not All Employee Turnover Is Bad ? Celebrate ?Losing the Losers? - ERE.net

At least 25% of all turnover is desirable turnover.

Current unemployment is under 25%, thus my statement that the majority of the unemployed are a good thing is not only provable.  I could argue that 100% of all unemployed workers are good for us because they are in the 25% that is desirable turnover.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could do it.  I could make the argument for the liberal side using conservative statements.
> 
> For example:
> 
> Unemployment.  I would argue, correctly, that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home.  You see, most of the unemployed actually slow everyone down at work.  Thus paying them to stay home is a net increase in productivity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Intelligent* argument!
> 
> You must operate within the parameters of the challenge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I forgot.  What are the challenge rules? Make the argument for the left that is unintelligent?  If I do that I'll just get negged again.  Should I make an unintelligent conservative argument for the left side?   I'm getting confused.
Click to expand...


The argument you made, was indeed typical of what I expect from the left; but failed to prove your point because it was a stupid argument.

You said you could make an intelligent argument from the left.

Assertion: Business is better off with high unemployment

Reasoning: The unemployed slow everyone down at work

Conclusion: Paying people to stay home increases productivity


So, your syllogism is entirely stupid and utterly illogical. While a fine example of an argument one would expect from Rdean or Synthaholic - it is anything but intelligent.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> Assertion: Business is better off with high unemployment
> 
> Reasoning: The unemployed slow everyone down at work
> 
> Conclusion: Paying people to stay home increases productivity
> 
> 
> So, your syllogism is entirely stupid and utterly illogical. While a fine example of an argument one would expect from Rdean or Synthaholic - it is anything but intelligent.



Your analysis is flawed, because you miss quoted me. I'll correct your error:

Assertion: Business is better off booting bad workers onto the unemployment line
Reasoning: The selected bad workers reduce overall productivity
Conclusion: Paying bad workers to stay home increases productivity

It's really a simple argument. If I'm paying someone 20k a year and they worth -5k a year to me (25k in production -20k in salary -10k) in errors and reduced production, then I would be better off paying them to go on the unemployment line for a few months to a year.  My net increase is 5k a year by booting him.  Simple math.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Why do you think all people on unemployment are lazy and not good workers? Perfectly good employees get laid off or lose their jobs for various reasons.

Wouldn't it be better if more of the unemployed were working to not only contribute to the tax base but also to buy the products that businesses sell and wouldn't it also be a fair argument to say low unemployment helps the economy and therefore helps business?


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> Your analysis is flawed, because you miss quoted me. I'll correct your error:
> 
> Assertion: Business is better off booting bad workers onto the unemployment line
> Reasoning: The selected bad workers reduce overall productivity
> Conclusion: Paying bad workers to stay home increases productivity
> 
> It's really a simple argument. If I'm paying someone 20k a year and they worth -5k a year to me (25k in production -20k in salary -10k) in errors and reduced production, then I would be better off paying them to go on the unemployment line for a few months to a year.  My net increase is 5k a year by booting him.  Simple math.



I did NOT misquote you, I used your exact words - you have attempted to rewrite your claim once it was demonstrated how stupid your assertion was.

FURTHER - now that it is rewritten, it is no longer consistent with leftist thought.

Firing dead wood is something a leftist would NEVER advocate.


----------



## koshergrl

I hate liberals because they're dishonest fascists.


----------



## Wolfsister77

OK-firing unproductive workers is different than what you originally said which was that  companies should pay the unemployed to stay home and not work because they are not productive.

Were you just talking about firing unproductive workers or were you talking about paying the unemployed to stay home?


----------



## RKMBrown

You said and I quote


Uncensored2008 said:


> Assertion: Business is better off with high unemployment
> 
> Reasoning: The unemployed slow everyone down at work
> 
> Conclusion: Paying people to stay home increases productivity


However that is not what I said. I did not make the assertion that "Business is better off with high unemployment." You are lying. 

What I said is "that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home." That is not the same as high unemployment is good.  You are just making shit up.  Typical righty.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your analysis is flawed, because you miss quoted me. I'll correct your error:
> 
> Assertion: Business is better off booting bad workers onto the unemployment line
> Reasoning: The selected bad workers reduce overall productivity
> Conclusion: Paying bad workers to stay home increases productivity
> 
> It's really a simple argument. If I'm paying someone 20k a year and they worth -5k a year to me (25k in production -20k in salary -10k) in errors and reduced production, then I would be better off paying them to go on the unemployment line for a few months to a year.  My net increase is 5k a year by booting him.  Simple math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did NOT misquote you, I used your exact words - you have attempted to rewrite your claim once it was demonstrated how stupid your assertion was.
> 
> FURTHER - now that it is rewritten, it is no longer consistent with leftist thought.
> 
> Firing dead wood is something a leftist would NEVER advocate.
Click to expand...

Wrong you lied.  Hint.  Use quotes pecker wood.


----------



## koshergrl

And their eternal yapping about how smart they are gets wearisome. Academia maintains they are the smartest people in the world..and the leftist loons who swallow what they're fed by academia think there's some sort of magical transferrence...as if they can osmos and absorb the *intelligence* and *intellectualism* the academics maintain drives their lofty ideals.

And their leaders view them as expendable, stupid sheep. The only people impressed by them are...well, they themselves.


----------



## RKMBrown

Wolfsister77 said:


> OK-firing unproductive workers is different than what you originally said which was that  companies should pay the unemployed to stay home and not work because they are not productive.
> 
> Were you just talking about firing unproductive workers or were you talking about paying the unemployed to stay home?



Your no different than all the other righty liars.  I said "that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. "  Use quotes next time instead of rewriting what I said based on your bad memory and horrible reading skills.

Hint:  Most unemployed workers were workers at one point in time that got fired because they were unproductive workers.  The ones that were productive workers... but got laid off anyways, yeah they don't stay unemployed long enough to collect many if any unemployment checks.

Therefore by logical reasoning... almost all if not all of the people who get on and stay on unemployment ... yeah for those folks we are better off they stay there rather than they screw up someone's business by getting hired again


----------



## Wolfsister77

RKMBrown said:


> You said and I quote
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assertion: Business is better off with high unemployment
> 
> Reasoning: The unemployed slow everyone down at work
> 
> Conclusion: Paying people to stay home increases productivity
> 
> 
> 
> However that is not what I said. I did not make the assertion that "Business is better off with high unemployment." You are lying.
> 
> What I said is "that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home." That is not the same as high unemployment is good.  You are just making shit up.  Typical righty.
Click to expand...


You changed your story. This is not really a good example of how Liberals or Conservatives argue. It is just a really bad argument in general and when you were called on it, you changed it to something more reasonable and you were called on that too.

Like I said before, Lame.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> You said and I quote
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assertion: Business is better off with high unemployment
> 
> Reasoning: The unemployed slow everyone down at work
> 
> Conclusion: Paying people to stay home increases productivity
> 
> 
> 
> However that is not what I said. I did not make the assertion that "Business is better off with high unemployment." You are lying.
> 
> What I said is "that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home." That is not the same as high unemployment is good.  You are just making shit up.  Typical righty.
Click to expand...



Again, I backquoted your exact words.

{Unemployment. I would argue, correctly, that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. You see, most of the unemployed actually slow everyone down at work. Thus paying them to stay home is a net increase in productivity.}

I then broke it into a syllogism to demonstrate how deeply flawed it is - after which you began rewriting the entire premise.


----------



## Wolfsister77

RKMBrown said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK-firing unproductive workers is different than what you originally said which was that  companies should pay the unemployed to stay home and not work because they are not productive.
> 
> Were you just talking about firing unproductive workers or were you talking about paying the unemployed to stay home?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your not different than all the other righty liars.  I said "that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. "  Use quotes next time instead of rewriting what I said based on your bad memory and horrible reading skills.
Click to expand...


Calling me a righty is funny. 

You could be giving an example of a really bad debater on either side of the political spectrum. It isn't right or left. It's just dumb.

I see what you're doing but it doesn't work.

Although it could if, like I said earlier, you gave an INTELLIGENT Liberal argument.


----------



## RKMBrown

koshergrl said:


> And their eternal yapping about how smart they are gets wearisome. Academia maintains they are the smartest people in the world..and the leftist loons who swallow what they're fed by academia think there's some sort of magical transferrence...as if they can osmos and absorb the *intelligence* and *intellectualism* the academics maintain drives their lofty ideals.
> 
> And their leaders view them as expendable, stupid sheep. The only people impressed by them are...well, they themselves.



Should I make that argument too from the right?  I'm a non-liberal arts computer science geek with a math major and an IQ/brain the size of the planet.  I can out think, out smart, and out liberals in my sleep.  How am I doing


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said and I quote
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assertion: Business is better off with high unemployment
> 
> Reasoning: The unemployed slow everyone down at work
> 
> Conclusion: Paying people to stay home increases productivity
> 
> 
> 
> However that is not what I said. I did not make the assertion that "Business is better off with high unemployment." You are lying.
> 
> What I said is "that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home." That is not the same as high unemployment is good.  You are just making shit up.  Typical righty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I backquoted your exact words.
> 
> {Unemployment. I would argue, correctly, that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. You see, most of the unemployed actually slow everyone down at work. Thus paying them to stay home is a net increase in productivity.}
> 
> I then broke it into a syllogism to demonstrate how deeply flawed it is - after which you began rewriting the entire premise.
Click to expand...

Your assertion was not my assertion.  It was your poor reading skills that led you to an incorrect assumption of what I meant by my opening statement.  IOW you lied.


----------



## Wolfsister77

RKMBrown said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK-firing unproductive workers is different than what you originally said which was that  companies should pay the unemployed to stay home and not work because they are not productive.
> 
> Were you just talking about firing unproductive workers or were you talking about paying the unemployed to stay home?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your no different than all the other righty liars.  I said "that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. "  Use quotes next time instead of rewriting what I said based on your bad memory and horrible reading skills.
> 
> Hint:  Most unemployed workers were workers at one point in time that got fired because they were unproductive workers.  The ones that were productive workers... but got laid off anyways, yeah they don't stay unemployed long enough to collect many if any unemployment checks.
> 
> Therefore by logical reasoning... almost all if not all of the people who get on and stay on unemployment ... yeah for those folks we are better off they stay there rather than they screw up someone's business by getting hired again
Click to expand...


OK, I quoted you this time. Your exact comments are visible. How easy is it to collect unemployment if you were fired for being unproductive? Also, are you kidding me? Many folks who are laid off are on unemployment for extended periods of time due to the terrible job market. 

Again, it would greatly benefit business for unemployment to be low so people are contributing to the tax base and buying products that these business sell. Also, the better the economy, the better it is for business.


----------



## RKMBrown

Wolfsister77 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK-firing unproductive workers is different than what you originally said which was that  companies should pay the unemployed to stay home and not work because they are not productive.
> 
> Were you just talking about firing unproductive workers or were you talking about paying the unemployed to stay home?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your not different than all the other righty liars.  I said "that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. "  Use quotes next time instead of rewriting what I said based on your bad memory and horrible reading skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling me a righty is funny.
> 
> You could be giving an example of a really bad debater on either side of the political spectrum. It isn't right or left. It's just dumb.
> 
> I see what you're doing but it doesn't work.
> 
> Although it could if, like I said earlier, you gave an INTELLIGENT Liberal argument.
Click to expand...


Typical authoritarian.  You have lost the argument... the debate is mine... so now you are deflecting.


----------



## Wolfsister77

RKMBrown said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your not different than all the other righty liars.  I said "that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. "  Use quotes next time instead of rewriting what I said based on your bad memory and horrible reading skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling me a righty is funny.
> 
> You could be giving an example of a really bad debater on either side of the political spectrum. It isn't right or left. It's just dumb.
> 
> I see what you're doing but it doesn't work.
> 
> Although it could if, like I said earlier, you gave an INTELLIGENT Liberal argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical authoritarian.  You have lost the argument... the debate is mine... so now you are deflecting.
Click to expand...


Declaring victory already?


----------



## Wolfsister77

What you are doing is too easy RKMBrown.


----------



## RKMBrown

Wolfsister77 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK-firing unproductive workers is different than what you originally said which was that  companies should pay the unemployed to stay home and not work because they are not productive.
> 
> Were you just talking about firing unproductive workers or were you talking about paying the unemployed to stay home?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your no different than all the other righty liars.  I said "that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. "  Use quotes next time instead of rewriting what I said based on your bad memory and horrible reading skills.
> 
> Hint:  Most unemployed workers were workers at one point in time that got fired because they were unproductive workers.  The ones that were productive workers... but got laid off anyways, yeah they don't stay unemployed long enough to collect many if any unemployment checks.
> 
> Therefore by logical reasoning... almost all if not all of the people who get on and stay on unemployment ... yeah for those folks we are better off they stay there rather than they screw up someone's business by getting hired again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, I quoted you this time. Your exact comments are visible. How easy is it to collect unemployment if you were fired for being unproductive? Also, are you kidding me? Many folks who are laid off are on unemployment for extended periods of time due to the terrible job market.
> 
> Again, it would greatly benefit business for unemployment to be low so people are contributing to the tax base and buying products that these business sell. Also, the better the economy, the better it is for business.
Click to expand...


>>> How easy is it to collect unemployment if you were fired for being unproductive? 

Very. I have two different relatives that collected it for two years straight under Obama.  It's only hard to collect unemployment if you were fired for misconduct. 

>>> Also, are you kidding me?

I'll tell you that after I win the argument.  I'll switch sides and win the other way.

>>> Many folks who are laid off are on unemployment for extended periods of time due to the terrible job market. 

Anyone that refuses to "work" for an extended period of time.. yeah for those people we are better off paying them to not work than to have them pollute the employers who actually want good workers.  People can move, people can work for themselves.  No excuses.  If you need one .. you are a bad worker anyways. 

>>> Again, it would greatly benefit business for unemployment to be low so people are contributing to the tax base and buying products that these business sell. Also, the better the economy, the better it is for business.

Wrong. Not with these people.  We are better off shuffling these people into small apartments where they will just be consumers and possibly sire children that may be more productive than they are.  Or perhaps they can serve some other useful function at home.  Either way we are better off with them out of the job market.  That way the good workers have jobs, vs having to compete for jobs with the bad workers.  Think about it this way.  At school they are only allowed to move on when the slowest kid gets it.  Just think how much better we'd be if that kid stayed home and let everyone move ahead.  Or better yet just give the kid an A so we can move on. It's cheaper to watch out for the bad kids at school than it would be to let them roam the streets causing trouble.


----------



## RKMBrown

Wolfsister77 said:


> What you are doing is too easy RKMBrown.



I think that was my earlier point. Arguing for the left... from any perspective, reasonable or not, is just terribly easy. Maybe that's why so many people become leftists?  Hmmm


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> Should I make that argument too from the right?  I'm a non-liberal arts computer science geek with a math major and an IQ/brain the size of the planet.  I can out think, out smart, and out liberals in my sleep.  How am I doing



Honestly, not too well, at this juncture.

My BS is in CIS, and I have an MBA (feel free to ask what it's in.)

I understand economics, ergo I am a Laissez Faire Capitalist. This is akin to stating that I am good at guitar, ergo I play the blues. The two are naturally bound. I am ultimately liberal, I am so liberal as to be minarchist, in a Harry Browne kind of way.

Since you seek to out think me, perhaps you should go to sleep? You know, considering your poor performance whilst awakened....


----------



## RKMBrown

Wolfsister77 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling me a righty is funny.
> 
> You could be giving an example of a really bad debater on either side of the political spectrum. It isn't right or left. It's just dumb.
> 
> I see what you're doing but it doesn't work.
> 
> Although it could if, like I said earlier, you gave an INTELLIGENT Liberal argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical authoritarian.  You have lost the argument... the debate is mine... so now you are deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Declaring victory already?
Click to expand...


It's a part of the left's point of view and also employed by the authoritarian right.  Declare victory early and often.  Did I do it wrong?


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should I make that argument too from the right?  I'm a non-liberal arts computer science geek with a math major and an IQ/brain the size of the planet.  I can out think, out smart, and out liberals in my sleep.  How am I doing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, not too well, at this juncture.
> 
> My BS is in CIS, and I have an MBA (feel free to ask what it's in.)
> 
> I understand economics, ergo I am a Laissez Faire Capitalist. This is akin to stating that I am good at guitar, ergo I play the blues. The two are naturally bound. I am ultimately liberal, I am so liberal as to be minarchist, in a Harry Browne kind of way.
> 
> Since you seek to out think me, perhaps you should go to sleep? You know, considering your poor performance whilst awakened....
Click to expand...


Well, then we generally hold the same views.  Don't confuse this bad attempt at defending a left position as my politics.


----------



## Wolfsister77

RKMBrown said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your no different than all the other righty liars.  I said "that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. "  Use quotes next time instead of rewriting what I said based on your bad memory and horrible reading skills.
> 
> Hint:  Most unemployed workers were workers at one point in time that got fired because they were unproductive workers.  The ones that were productive workers... but got laid off anyways, yeah they don't stay unemployed long enough to collect many if any unemployment checks.
> 
> Therefore by logical reasoning... almost all if not all of the people who get on and stay on unemployment ... yeah for those folks we are better off they stay there rather than they screw up someone's business by getting hired again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I quoted you this time. Your exact comments are visible. How easy is it to collect unemployment if you were fired for being unproductive? Also, are you kidding me? Many folks who are laid off are on unemployment for extended periods of time due to the terrible job market.
> 
> Again, it would greatly benefit business for unemployment to be low so people are contributing to the tax base and buying products that these business sell. Also, the better the economy, the better it is for business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>> How easy is it to collect unemployment if you were fired for being unproductive?
> 
> Very. I have two different relatives that collected it for two years straight under Obama.  It's only hard to collect unemployment if you were fired for misconduct.
> 
> >>> Also, are you kidding me?
> 
> I'll tell you that after I win the argument.  I'll switch sides and win the other way.
> 
> >>> Many folks who are laid off are on unemployment for extended periods of time due to the terrible job market.
> 
> Anyone that refuses to "work" for an extended period of time.. yeah for those people we are better off paying them to not work than to have them pollute the employers who actually want good workers.  People can move, people can work for themselves.  No excuses.  If you need one .. you are a bad worker anyways.
> 
> >>> Again, it would greatly benefit business for unemployment to be low so people are contributing to the tax base and buying products that these business sell. Also, the better the economy, the better it is for business.
> 
> Wrong. Not with these people.  We are better off shuffling these people into small apartments where they will just be consumers and possibly sire children that may be more productive than they are.  Or perhaps they can serve some other useful function at home.  Either way we are better off with them out of the job market.  That way the good workers have jobs, vs having to compete for jobs with the bad workers.  Think about it this way.  At school they are only allowed to move on when the slowest kid gets it.  Just think how much better we'd be if that kid stayed home and let everyone move ahead.  Or better yet just give the kid an A so we can move on. It's cheaper to watch out for the bad kids at school than it would be to let them roam the streets causing trouble.
Click to expand...


I'm going to address your last paragraph which is the one I disagree with the most. Is it really fair or right to just take a group of people and shove them somewhere out of the way? They'd probably have to collect welfare and they'd probably not be able to buy much to contribute to society. 

Why not just kill them instead?

And for the slow kid making them stay home? Would it not be better for society to find a way for that kid to learn and be a productive member of society and able to contribute?

Or should we just shoot them too?


----------



## RKMBrown

Wolfsister77 said:


> Is it really fair or right to just take a group of people and shove them somewhere out of the way? They'd probably have to collect welfare and they'd probably not be able to buy much to contribute to society.
> 
> Why not just kill them instead?
> 
> And for the slow kid making them stay home? Would it not be better for society to find a way for that kid to learn and be a productive member of society and able to contribute?
> 
> Or should we just shoot them too?



Who said anything about shoving them out of the way.  We're just making the world more productive through redistribution programs. 

Killing people?  Forcing people to be productive?  Wow why don't you just bring out the whips, chains, and ovens?


----------



## Wolfsister77

sarcasm-it's an interesting concept.


----------



## RKMBrown

Wolfsister77 said:


> sarcasm-it's an interesting concept.


----------



## koshergrl

RKMBrown said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK-firing unproductive workers is different than what you originally said which was that companies should pay the unemployed to stay home and not work because they are not productive.
> 
> Were you just talking about firing unproductive workers or were you talking about paying the unemployed to stay home?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your no different than all the other righty liars. I said "that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. " Use quotes next time instead of rewriting what I said based on your bad memory and horrible reading skills.
> 
> Hint: Most unemployed workers were workers at one point in time that got fired because they were unproductive workers. The ones that were productive workers... but got laid off anyways, yeah they don't stay unemployed long enough to collect many if any unemployment checks.
> 
> Therefore by logical reasoning... almost all if not all of the people who get on and stay on unemployment ... yeah for those folks we are better off they stay there rather than they screw up someone's business by getting hired again
Click to expand...

 
I'm so confused. For the life of me, I can't figure out what your politics are, or even what you're saying.


----------



## koshergrl

I thought you said you were smarter than liberals, but then I see you bashing righties, or something.

Meh. Good communication skills are typically a symptom of super high intelligence. The ability to get ideas across. And I'm not seeing that.


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of his Liberal arguments were lame at best. He should of made an intelligent point on the Liberal side of things to be truly clever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that would be unrealistic and tip the reader off that the point was not made by a leftist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, that would be an interesting experiment to try. I'll bet it would be difficult for people on both sides to step outside their shell and argue the other side intelligently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One side is based on a rational and intelligent analysis of events and factors, and the other side is the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could do it.  I could make the argument for the liberal side using conservative statements.
> 
> For example:
> 
> Unemployment.  I would argue, correctly, that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home.  You see, most of the unemployed actually slow everyone down at work.  Thus paying them to stay home is a net increase in productivity.
Click to expand...


Such bullshit. The vast majority of the unemployed LOST their jobs due to no fault of their own. And guess what, to qualify for unemployment insurance you had to HAVE a job for a significant period of time.

You people are such turds.


----------



## Uncensored2008

koshergrl said:


> I'm so confused. For the life of me, I can't figure out what your politics are, or even what you're saying.



He's playing at being clever, but he ain't no Bil Stunbmun....


----------



## RKMBrown

koshergrl said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK-firing unproductive workers is different than what you originally said which was that companies should pay the unemployed to stay home and not work because they are not productive.
> 
> Were you just talking about firing unproductive workers or were you talking about paying the unemployed to stay home?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your no different than all the other righty liars. I said "that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. " Use quotes next time instead of rewriting what I said based on your bad memory and horrible reading skills.
> 
> Hint: Most unemployed workers were workers at one point in time that got fired because they were unproductive workers. The ones that were productive workers... but got laid off anyways, yeah they don't stay unemployed long enough to collect many if any unemployment checks.
> 
> Therefore by logical reasoning... almost all if not all of the people who get on and stay on unemployment ... yeah for those folks we are better off they stay there rather than they screw up someone's business by getting hired again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm so confused. For the life of me, I can't figure out what your politics are, or even what you're saying.
Click to expand...


Then it's working.  FYI...  I'm just joking don't take the contents of this thread seriously I'm a constitutional conservative attempting, poorly, to make arguments for the left.

Man its hard to maintain two personalities.


----------



## Foxfyre

He's a hard line libertarian, KG, about as close to anarchist as you can get without being one.  But he did argue like a liberal pretty convincingly.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You opinion of Liberals is duly noted. I frankly get bored with all the Liberal bashing. If you Conservatives just want to sit and talk amongst yourselves and pat each other on the back, by all means have fun. Right-wing circle jerks are boring just as left-wing ones are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all due respect Wolfsister, I love you dearly, but the thread was started by a dedicated left wing liberal and the title is "Why do people hate liberals?"   Many if not most posting on the thread have been addressing the thread topic.   Don't blame us.  Blame Saigon.
> 
> And I think to the credit of us conservatives, not all but most have refused to focus on 'hating liberals' and reject that concept as we don't hate people who happen to be liberals.  But we do hate the negative consequences of liberalism.   It is an honest and could be productive topic for a message board, most especially for those who do blame liberalism for many ills of society that we have today.
> 
> Liberals can be lovable and great folks.
> Liberalism not so much.
Click to expand...


The consequences of liberalism has been to extend freedom, opportunity and rights to all Americans and all people. The consequences of conservatism has been to restrict those freedoms, opportunities and rights.

Every significant freedom, opportunity and right that has benefited We, the People has come from, been advocated by and passed by liberals. There is no conservative legacy of expanding rights or liberties.

The consequences of conservatism invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man; the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."


----------



## dblack

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You opinion of Liberals is duly noted. I frankly get bored with all the Liberal bashing. If you Conservatives just want to sit and talk amongst yourselves and pat each other on the back, by all means have fun. Right-wing circle jerks are boring just as left-wing ones are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all due respect Wolfsister, I love you dearly, but the thread was started by a dedicated left wing liberal and the title is "Why do people hate liberals?"   Many if not most posting on the thread have been addressing the thread topic.   Don't blame us.  Blame Saigon.
> 
> And I think to the credit of us conservatives, not all but most have refused to focus on 'hating liberals' and reject that concept as we don't hate people who happen to be liberals.  But we do hate the negative consequences of liberalism.   It is an honest and could be productive topic for a message board, most especially for those who do blame liberalism for many ills of society that we have today.
> 
> Liberals can be lovable and great folks.
> Liberalism not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The consequences of liberalism has been to extend freedom, opportunity and rights to all Americans and all people.
Click to expand...


Yeah. 'Has been'. What the hell happened?


----------



## American_Jihad

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You opinion of Liberals is duly noted. I frankly get bored with all the Liberal bashing. If you Conservatives just want to sit and talk amongst yourselves and pat each other on the back, by all means have fun. Right-wing circle jerks are boring just as left-wing ones are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all due respect Wolfsister, I love you dearly, but the thread was started by a dedicated left wing liberal and the title is "Why do people hate liberals?"   Many if not most posting on the thread have been addressing the thread topic.   Don't blame us.  Blame Saigon.
> 
> And I think to the credit of us conservatives, not all but most have refused to focus on 'hating liberals' and reject that concept as we don't hate people who happen to be liberals.  But we do hate the negative consequences of liberalism.   It is an honest and could be productive topic for a message board, most especially for those who do blame liberalism for many ills of society that we have today.
> 
> Liberals can be lovable and great folks.
> Liberalism not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The consequences of liberalism has been to extend freedom, opportunity and rights to all Americans and all people. The consequences of conservatism has been to restrict those freedoms, opportunities and rights.
> 
> Every significant freedom, opportunity and right that has benefited We, the People has come from, been advocated by and passed by liberals. There is no conservative legacy of expanding rights or liberties.
> 
> The consequences of conservatism invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man; the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."
Click to expand...


Being that you like the twisted words of JFK what do you think about this quote...

"ask not what your country can do for you &#8212; ask what you can do for your country."


...


----------



## Bfgrn

American_Jihad said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all due respect Wolfsister, I love you dearly, but the thread was started by a dedicated left wing liberal and the title is "Why do people hate liberals?"   Many if not most posting on the thread have been addressing the thread topic.   Don't blame us.  Blame Saigon.
> 
> And I think to the credit of us conservatives, not all but most have refused to focus on 'hating liberals' and reject that concept as we don't hate people who happen to be liberals.  But we do hate the negative consequences of liberalism.   It is an honest and could be productive topic for a message board, most especially for those who do blame liberalism for many ills of society that we have today.
> 
> Liberals can be lovable and great folks.
> Liberalism not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The consequences of liberalism has been to extend freedom, opportunity and rights to all Americans and all people. The consequences of conservatism has been to restrict those freedoms, opportunities and rights.
> 
> Every significant freedom, opportunity and right that has benefited We, the People has come from, been advocated by and passed by liberals. There is no conservative legacy of expanding rights or liberties.
> 
> The consequences of conservatism invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man; the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being that you like the twisted words of JFK what do you think about this quote...
> 
> "ask not what your country can do for you &#8212; ask what you can do for your country."
> 
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


No words were 'twisted'. I completely agree with those words ("ask not..."). But if you know JFK and the Kennedy family's beliefs you would understand what he is calling for. Do you know?


----------



## Bfgrn

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all due respect Wolfsister, I love you dearly, but the thread was started by a dedicated left wing liberal and the title is "Why do people hate liberals?"   Many if not most posting on the thread have been addressing the thread topic.   Don't blame us.  Blame Saigon.
> 
> And I think to the credit of us conservatives, not all but most have refused to focus on 'hating liberals' and reject that concept as we don't hate people who happen to be liberals.  But we do hate the negative consequences of liberalism.   It is an honest and could be productive topic for a message board, most especially for those who do blame liberalism for many ills of society that we have today.
> 
> Liberals can be lovable and great folks.
> Liberalism not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The consequences of liberalism has been to extend freedom, opportunity and rights to all Americans and all people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. 'Has been'. What the hell happened?
Click to expand...


Do you really want to know? Maybe Charles Krauthammer can enlighten you...

Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."


----------



## American_Jihad

Bfgrn said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The consequences of liberalism has been to extend freedom, opportunity and rights to all Americans and all people. The consequences of conservatism has been to restrict those freedoms, opportunities and rights.
> 
> Every significant freedom, opportunity and right that has benefited We, the People has come from, been advocated by and passed by liberals. There is no conservative legacy of expanding rights or liberties.
> 
> *The consequences of conservatism* invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man; the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being that you like the twisted words of JFK what do you think about this quote...
> 
> "ask not what your country can do for you &#8212; ask what you can do for your country."
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No words were 'twisted'. I completely agree with those words ("ask not..."). But if you know JFK and the Kennedy family's beliefs you would understand what he is calling for. Do you know?
Click to expand...


But democratic society--in it, the highest duty of the writer, the composer, the artist is to remain true to himself and to let the chips fall where they may. In serving his vision of the truth, the artist best serves his nation. And the nation which disdains the mission of art *invites the fate *of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."

President John F. Kennedy: Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963


twisted/plagiarized...


----------



## dblack

Bfgrn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The consequences of liberalism has been to extend freedom, opportunity and rights to all Americans and all people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. 'Has been'. What the hell happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really want to know? Maybe Charles Krauthammer can enlighten you...
> 
> Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Click to expand...


Don't be coy. You know that I'm talking about the fruits of what passes for 'liberalism' today, not liberalism 100 years ago. And Reagan was pretty liberal, granted, but I don't think you can blame him for all the excesses of modern liberalism.

I guess what's sad is that the comment I quoted from your post was totally true. Liberalism _was_ the driving force behind so much of our freedom and opportunity. But now it seems to work toward opposite ends.


----------



## Bfgrn

American_Jihad said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being that you like the twisted words of JFK what do you think about this quote...
> 
> "ask not what your country can do for you &#8212; ask what you can do for your country."
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No words were 'twisted'. I completely agree with those words ("ask not..."). But if you know JFK and the Kennedy family's beliefs you would understand what he is calling for. Do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But democratic society--in it, the highest duty of the writer, the composer, the artist is to remain true to himself and to let the chips fall where they may. In serving his vision of the truth, the artist best serves his nation. And the nation which disdains the mission of art *invites the fate *of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."
> 
> President John F. Kennedy: Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963
> 
> 
> twisted/plagiarized...
Click to expand...


The fate of Robert Frost's hired man is not limited to writers, composers, and artists. It is a very apt description of what conservatism always manifests into, the failure of democracy and the constant push to create a hierarchy. 

Are you going to answer my question?


----------



## Bfgrn

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. 'Has been'. What the hell happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really want to know? Maybe Charles Krauthammer can enlighten you...
> 
> Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be coy. You know that I'm talking about the fruits of what passes for 'liberalism' today, not liberalism 100 years ago. And Reagan was pretty liberal, granted, but I don't think you can blame him for all the excesses of modern liberalism.
> 
> I guess what's sad is that the comment I quoted from your post was totally true. Liberalism _was_ the driving force behind so much of our freedom and opportunity. But now it seems to work toward opposite ends.
Click to expand...


Try to READ and comprehend what Krauthammer said. 

Liberalism today? You mean like the push to extend freedom, opportunity and rights to women (equal pay), gays and Muslims?


----------



## American_Jihad

Bfgrn said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No words were 'twisted'. I completely agree with those words ("ask not..."). But if you know JFK and the Kennedy family's beliefs you would understand what he is calling for. Do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But democratic society--in it, the highest duty of the writer, the composer, the artist is to remain true to himself and to let the chips fall where they may. In serving his vision of the truth, the artist best serves his nation. And the nation which disdains the mission of art *invites the fate *of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."
> 
> President John F. Kennedy: Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963
> 
> 
> twisted/plagiarized...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fate of Robert Frost's hired man is not limited to writers, composers, and artists. It is a very apt description of what conservatism always manifests into, the failure of democracy and the constant push to create a hierarchy.
> 
> Are you going to answer my question?
Click to expand...


The answer is you're a twisted plagiarizer too stupid to use your own words...


----------



## dblack

Bfgrn said:


> Try to READ and comprehend what Krauthammer said.



Why? Is he a liberal?



> Liberalism today? You mean like the push to extend freedom, opportunity and rights to women (equal pay), gays and Muslims?



Sort of. The modern liberal preoccupation with granting special rights to protected classes has gone a long way toward diminishing the general civil rights of all people. But it's more than that. It's the shift away from rule of law and individual rights, embracing corporatism instead, that's really sullied the image of liberalism. 

Largely in the name of liberal social engineering, our government no longer provides equal protection of our rights. Instead it parses out privileges and penalties, and cuts a different deal for everyone, depending on which interest group they belong to.


----------



## Bfgrn

American_Jihad said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> But democratic society--in it, the highest duty of the writer, the composer, the artist is to remain true to himself and to let the chips fall where they may. In serving his vision of the truth, the artist best serves his nation. And the nation which disdains the mission of art *invites the fate *of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."
> 
> President John F. Kennedy: Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963
> 
> 
> twisted/plagiarized...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fate of Robert Frost's hired man is not limited to writers, composers, and artists. It is a very apt description of what conservatism always manifests into, the failure of democracy and the constant push to create a hierarchy.
> 
> Are you going to answer my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is you're a twisted plagiarizer too stupid to use your own words...
Click to expand...


Do you know what President Kennedy meant when he said "ask not..." or are you going to twist his words to serve YOUR agenda, and not his?


----------



## Bfgrn

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to READ and comprehend what Krauthammer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Is he a liberal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism today? You mean like the push to extend freedom, opportunity and rights to women (equal pay), gays and Muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sort of. The modern liberal preoccupation with granting special rights to protected classes has gone a long way toward diminishing the general civil rights of all people. But it's more than that. It's the shift away from rule of law and individual rights, embracing corporatism instead, that's really sullied the image of liberalism.
> 
> Largely in the name of liberal social engineering, our government no longer provides equal protection of our rights. Instead it parses out privileges and penalties, and cuts a different deal for everyone, depending on which interest group they belong to.
Click to expand...


You keep on telling me you have no understanding of what Krauthammer said.

The last 30 years have been controlled by conservatives, not liberals. I am old enough to remember the liberal era. It pretty much ended when liberals boarded Bobby Kennedy's funeral train.

It is conservatives who have a preoccupation with granting special rights to protected  classes, especially the wealthy and corporations. Do you live under a rock, or maybe you have some undetected neurological disability?


----------



## dblack

Bfgrn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to READ and comprehend what Krauthammer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Is he a liberal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism today? You mean like the push to extend freedom, opportunity and rights to women (equal pay), gays and Muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sort of. The modern liberal preoccupation with granting special rights to protected classes has gone a long way toward diminishing the general civil rights of all people. But it's more than that. It's the shift away from rule of law and individual rights, embracing corporatism instead, that's really sullied the image of liberalism.
> 
> Largely in the name of liberal social engineering, our government no longer provides equal protection of our rights. Instead it parses out privileges and penalties, and cuts a different deal for everyone, depending on which interest group they belong to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep on telling me you have no understanding of what Krauthammer said.
> 
> The last 30 years have been controlled by conservatives, not liberals. I am old enough to remember the liberal era. It pretty much ended when liberals boarded Bobby Kennedy's funeral train.
> 
> It is conservatives who have a preoccupation with granting special rights to protected  classes, especially the wealthy and corporations. Do you live under a rock, or maybe you have some undetected neurological disability?
Click to expand...


This thread is about liberalism (Why do people hate Liberals?). If you want to start a thread bashing conservatives, go for it. I'll likely join in!

Though none of what you accuse conservatives of lets liberals off the hook for their own bullshit. It's just diversion.


----------



## Bfgrn

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Is he a liberal?
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of. The modern liberal preoccupation with granting special rights to protected classes has gone a long way toward diminishing the general civil rights of all people. But it's more than that. It's the shift away from rule of law and individual rights, embracing corporatism instead, that's really sullied the image of liberalism.
> 
> Largely in the name of liberal social engineering, our government no longer provides equal protection of our rights. Instead it parses out privileges and penalties, and cuts a different deal for everyone, depending on which interest group they belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep on telling me you have no understanding of what Krauthammer said.
> 
> The last 30 years have been controlled by conservatives, not liberals. I am old enough to remember the liberal era. It pretty much ended when liberals boarded Bobby Kennedy's funeral train.
> 
> It is conservatives who have a preoccupation with granting special rights to protected  classes, especially the wealthy and corporations. Do you live under a rock, or maybe you have some undetected neurological disability?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is about liberalism (Why do people hate Liberals?). If you want to start a thread bashing conservatives, go for it. I'll likely join in!
> 
> Though none of what you accuse conservatives of lets liberals off the hook for their own bullshit. It's just diversion.
Click to expand...


SO, I am bound to only talk about hate of liberals. Sure sounds like how conservatives think...close minds that are very, very tiny.


----------



## dblack

Bfgrn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep on telling me you have no understanding of what Krauthammer said.
> 
> The last 30 years have been controlled by conservatives, not liberals. I am old enough to remember the liberal era. It pretty much ended when liberals boarded Bobby Kennedy's funeral train.
> 
> It is conservatives who have a preoccupation with granting special rights to protected  classes, especially the wealthy and corporations. Do you live under a rock, or maybe you have some undetected neurological disability?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is about liberalism (Why do people hate Liberals?). If you want to start a thread bashing conservatives, go for it. I'll likely join in!
> 
> Though none of what you accuse conservatives of lets liberals off the hook for their own bullshit. It's just diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO, I am bound to only talk about hate of liberals. Sure sounds like how conservatives think...close minds that are very, very tiny.
Click to expand...


You can talk about whatever you want. Clearly, you don't _want_ to talk about the problems people have with liberalism (the topic), preferring to point out the problems you have with conservatism instead. I guess you're just assuming that anyone criticizing liberalism is implicitly supporting conservatism, and perhaps thinking of your comments as a 'counter-attack'. But that's not a valid assumption and, as I mentioned, the faults of conservatives are really no excuse for the faults of liberals.


----------



## Bfgrn

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is about liberalism (Why do people hate Liberals?). If you want to start a thread bashing conservatives, go for it. I'll likely join in!
> 
> Though none of what you accuse conservatives of lets liberals off the hook for their own bullshit. It's just diversion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SO, I am bound to only talk about hate of liberals. Sure sounds like how conservatives think...close minds that are very, very tiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can talk about whatever you want. Clearly, you don't _want_ to talk about the problems people have with liberalism (the topic), preferring to point out the problems you have with conservatism instead. I guess you're just assuming that anyone criticizing liberalism is implicitly supporting conservatism, and perhaps thinking of your comments as a 'counter-attack'. But that's not a valid assumption and, as I mentioned, the faults of conservatives are really no excuse for the faults of liberals.
Click to expand...


Your problem is you are blaming liberals for what conservatives support, and liberals oppose. Corporatism is a glaring example. We now have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Citizens United vs. FEC, which basically says America should be run by corporations was vehemently opposed by liberals on the court and liberals in general. The health care bill; liberals and progressives pushed for single payer, or at least a public option, NOT the individual mandate. That was the construct of conservatives, not liberals.


----------



## American_Jihad

Bfgrn said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fate of Robert Frost's hired man is not limited to writers, composers, and artists. It is a very apt description of what conservatism always manifests into, the failure of democracy and the constant push to create a hierarchy.
> 
> Are you going to answer my question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is you're a twisted plagiarizer too stupid to use your own words...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what President Kennedy meant when he said "ask not..." or are you going to twist his words to serve YOUR agenda, and not his?
Click to expand...


You twisted jfk's speech not me, oh yeah that salunsky crap don't work on me...


----------



## Bfgrn

American_Jihad said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is you're a twisted plagiarizer too stupid to use your own words...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what President Kennedy meant when he said "ask not..." or are you going to twist his words to serve YOUR agenda, and not his?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You twisted jfk's speech not me, oh yeah that salunsky crap don't work on me...
Click to expand...


Oh, I see, a typical conservative troll, infested with FEAR.

Go run home to mommy and hide under the bed...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fate of Robert Frost's hired man is not limited to writers, composers, and artists. It is a very apt description of what conservatism always manifests into, the failure of democracy and the constant push to create a hierarchy.
> 
> Are you going to answer my question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is you're a twisted plagiarizer too stupid to use your own words...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what President Kennedy meant when he said "ask not..." or are you going to twist his words to serve YOUR agenda, and not his?
Click to expand...


He meant "You didn't build that!"


----------



## dblack

Bfgrn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO, I am bound to only talk about hate of liberals. Sure sounds like how conservatives think...close minds that are very, very tiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can talk about whatever you want. Clearly, you don't _want_ to talk about the problems people have with liberalism (the topic), preferring to point out the problems you have with conservatism instead. I guess you're just assuming that anyone criticizing liberalism is implicitly supporting conservatism, and perhaps thinking of your comments as a 'counter-attack'. But that's not a valid assumption and, as I mentioned, the faults of conservatives are really no excuse for the faults of liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your problem is you are blaming liberals for what conservatives support, and liberals oppose. Corporatism is a glaring example. We now have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Citizens United vs. FEC, which basically says America should be run by corporations was vehemently opposed by liberals on the court and liberals in general. The health care bill; liberals and progressives pushed for single payer, or at least a public option, NOT the individual mandate. That was the construct of conservatives, not liberals.
Click to expand...


I'm blaming liberals for what they've done, and PPACA is all theirs. Blaming it on conservatives is, again, a diversion. The responsibility lies with the leaders who voted for it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bfgrn said:


> The consequences of liberalism has been to extend freedom, opportunity and rights to all Americans and all people.



Which are things you leftists are working diligently to eradicate.

You of the left are authoritarian in philosophy and in practice.


----------



## Uncensored2008

dblack said:


> Yeah. 'Has been'. What the hell happened?



The media applied the term "liberal" to the authoritarian leftists. There is nothing even remotely "liberal" about Bfgrn, he has zero in common with Thomas Jefferson or Tom Payne. He has a GREAT deal in common, philosophically, with Ho Chi Mihn and Fidel Castro, though.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can talk about whatever you want. Clearly, you don't _want_ to talk about the problems people have with liberalism (the topic), preferring to point out the problems you have with conservatism instead. I guess you're just assuming that anyone criticizing liberalism is implicitly supporting conservatism, and perhaps thinking of your comments as a 'counter-attack'. But that's not a valid assumption and, as I mentioned, the faults of conservatives are really no excuse for the faults of liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is you are blaming liberals for what conservatives support, and liberals oppose. Corporatism is a glaring example. We now have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Citizens United vs. FEC, which basically says America should be run by corporations was vehemently opposed by liberals on the court and liberals in general. The health care bill; liberals and progressives pushed for single payer, or at least a public option, NOT the individual mandate. That was the construct of conservatives, not liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm blaming liberals for what they've done, and PPACA is all theirs. Blaming it on conservatives is, again, a diversion. The responsibility lies with the leaders who voted for it.
Click to expand...


Yes, it should always be the consequences of a particular policy or regulation that determines whether we praise it or condemn it.  Some point to Massachusetts under a GOP governer (the legislature there is solidly Democrat of course) and their mostly successful state healthcare plan as proof that PPACA was a Republican idea.

It was good enough for a GOP governor, the liberals say, but now that it is a Democrat President--a BLACK Democrat President--the racist Republicans have their shorts in a wad over the exact same healthcare plan for everybody.   All of which of course is utter nonsense.

Well it worked pretty well in the relatively small state of Massachusetts for a year or two.  There are more people in NYC than there are in all of Massachusetts, and Massachusetts is a very homogenous and affluent state with a very low minority population and, at the time their healthcare plan went into effect fewer than 10% of the people below the poverty line--all those those already covered by Medicare or other insurance.

Roughly 2/3rds of Massachusetts folks still like the plan but the costs to the state--Massachutts spends more per capita now for healthcare than ANY other state--is up more than 25% and insurance premiums have increased by about the same amount.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57459563/massachusetts-health-care-plan-6-years-later/

But liberalism wants to extrapolate that mixed bag into a mandate for 330 million people, much more diverse, much less homogenous, bring tens of millions of uninsured--most uninsured by choice--into a mandated plan when the variables over the USA as a whole are huge.  And we are already seeing the train wreck that has occurred and that is going to only get much much worse.  So already insurance premiums are increasing more rapidly than ever before, the cost to the tax payer will be enormous  the backlash is increasing unemployment, is decreasing personal incomes, and is a huge drag on an already struggling economy, and our healthcare system is deteriorating before our eyes.

If we as a people could just step out of our partisan suits and look at something objectively, clear eyed, honestly, and with no motives of blame, one-upmanship, and fuzzy feel good emotions, we would choose much more wisely.


----------



## Immanuel

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is about liberalism (Why do people hate Liberals?). If you want to start a thread bashing conservatives, go for it. I'll likely join in!
> 
> Though none of what you accuse conservatives of lets liberals off the hook for their own bullshit. It's just diversion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SO, I am bound to only talk about hate of liberals. Sure sounds like how conservatives think...close minds that are very, very tiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can talk about whatever you want. Clearly, you don't _want_ to talk about the problems people have with liberalism (the topic), preferring to point out the problems you have with conservatism instead. I guess you're just assuming that anyone criticizing liberalism is implicitly supporting conservatism, and perhaps thinking of your comments as a 'counter-attack'. But that's not a valid assumption and, as I mentioned, the faults of conservatives are really no excuse for the faults of liberals.
Click to expand...


All bfgrn cares to talk about is his hatred.  It really is disgusting how some one can hate so many people he doesn't even know especially a progressive who expects everyone else to tolerate him.

Immie


----------



## Wolfsister77

So is hating Liberals the only topic that can be discussed just because that was the OP 150 pages ago and the thread title or can it evolve?

Regarding the ACA, they should of put in a public option or Medicare for all with a private insurance supplement you can buy into.


----------



## Immanuel

Wolfsister77 said:


> So is hating Liberals the only topic that can be discussed just because that was the OP 150 pages ago and the thread title or can it evolve?
> 
> Regarding the ACA, they should of put in a public option or Medicare for all with a private insurance supplement you can buy into.



No, it is not the only topic.  What is sad is that bfgrn used to be a relatively decent poster, but must have encountered some kind of brain eating amoeba or something that has destroyed all ability to respond like a human being as opposed to the partisan idiot he has become.

Immie


----------



## Foxfyre

Wolfsister77 said:


> So is hating Liberals the only topic that can be discussed just because that was the OP 150 pages ago and the thread title or can it evolve?
> 
> Regarding the ACA, they should of put in a public option or Medicare for all with a private insurance supplement you can buy into.



Well I don't hate liberals so I don't discuss that at all.  I do hate the worst consequences of liberalism ala 'liberalism' in 21st Century America however, because there is nothing 'liberal' or 'freedom loving' about it.  I want to spend the money I earn or have earned myself as much as is practical or possible rather than hand over to a government that will swallow up two thirds of it into its own bureaucracy and then spend anything left over for me.

Short of trampling on the rights of others, I want to govern myself, choose what options, opportunities, and goals I will strive for, and be responsible and accountable for my own choices, and not for everybody else's.

I want the right to have the kind of society that I want together with other like minded people without being harrassed or forced by those who would demand that I live in the kind of society THEY think I should live in.

And I want the right to speak as I choose, short of malicious libel or slandering of others, without the PC police descending to destroy me because I don't use the right words or express the right opinions.

Is that asking too much?


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is hating Liberals the only topic that can be discussed just because that was the OP 150 pages ago and the thread title or can it evolve?
> 
> Regarding the ACA, they should of put in a public option or Medicare for all with a private insurance supplement you can buy into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't hate liberals so I don't discuss that at all.  I do hate the worst consequences of liberalism ala 'liberalism' in 21st Century America however, because there is nothing 'liberal' or 'freedom loving' about it.  I want to spend the money I earn or have earned myself as much as is practical or possible rather than hand over to a government that will swallow up two thirds of it into its own bureaucracy and then spend anything left over for me.
> 
> Short of trampling on the rights of others, I want to govern myself, choose what options, opportunities, and goals I will strive for, and be responsible and accountable for my own choices, and not for everybody else's.
> 
> I want the right to have the kind of society that I want together with other like minded people without being harrassed or forced by those who would demand that I live in the kind of society THEY think I should live in.
> 
> And I want the right to speak as I choose, short of malicious libel or slandering of others, without the PC police descending to destroy me because I don't use the right words or express the right opinions.
> 
> Is that asking too much?
Click to expand...


Not at all; you've just described the goal of Liberalism -- which is ironic considering your lead sentence.

That this thread will not acknowledge that is why it never goes anywhere.


----------



## dblack

numan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that asking too much?
> 
> 
> 
> What you and others of your ilk are incapable of understanding is that you cannot have freedom without also having responsibility -- and that includes PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY.
> 
> The lack of same has been the bane of American society all through its history.
> 
> "I'll get mine, and the devil take the hindmost," has been its dominant note right from the beginning.
> 
> *"I insist on teaching people that they must first reform society before they can reform themselves."*
> _---Bernard Shaw_
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Most libertarians I've met are quite enthusiastic about community and public responsibility. But we don't believe it's something that should be coerced.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that asking too much?
> 
> 
> 
> What you and others of your ilk are incapable of understanding is that you cannot have freedom without also having responsibility -- and that includes PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY.
> 
> The lack of same has been the bane of American society all through its history.
> 
> "I'll get mine, and the devil take the hindmost," has been its dominant note right from the beginning.
> 
> *"I insist on teaching people that they must first reform society before they can reform themselves."*
> _---Bernard Shaw_
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most libertarians I've met are quite enthusiastic about community and public responsibility. But we don't believe it's something that should be coerced.
Click to expand...


Ding.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is hating Liberals the only topic that can be discussed just because that was the OP 150 pages ago and the thread title or can it evolve?
> 
> Regarding the ACA, they should of put in a public option or Medicare for all with a private insurance supplement you can buy into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't hate liberals so I don't discuss that at all.  I do hate the worst consequences of liberalism ala 'liberalism' in 21st Century America however, because there is nothing 'liberal' or 'freedom loving' about it.  I want to spend the money I earn or have earned myself as much as is practical or possible rather than hand over to a government that will swallow up two thirds of it into its own bureaucracy and then spend anything left over for me.
> 
> Short of trampling on the rights of others, I want to govern myself, choose what options, opportunities, and goals I will strive for, and be responsible and accountable for my own choices, and not for everybody else's.
> 
> I want the right to have the kind of society that I want together with other like minded people without being harrassed or forced by those who would demand that I live in the kind of society THEY think I should live in.
> 
> And I want the right to speak as I choose, short of malicious libel or slandering of others, without the PC police descending to destroy me because I don't use the right words or express the right opinions.
> 
> Is that asking too much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all; you've just described the goal of Liberalism -- which is ironic considering your lead sentence.
> 
> That this thread will not acknowledge that is why it never goes anywhere.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately what has come to be understood as 21st Century liberalism in America does not seek such goals and in fact condemn, slander, ridicule, marginalize, diminish, accuse, and too often attempt to destroy those who seek them.  

I know you have argued that definitions do not change.  But you are wrong.  They do change in the vernacular of changing cultures.  Most of those who are self described liberals at USMB for instance, would deny me my freedoms in favor of forcing me to accept a society they would design as ideal.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that asking too much?
> 
> 
> 
> What you and others of your ilk are incapable of understanding is that you cannot have freedom without also having responsibility -- and that includes PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY.
> 
> The lack of same has been the bane of American society all through its history.
> 
> "I'll get mine, and the devil take the hindmost," has been its dominant note right from the beginning.
> 
> *"I insist on teaching people that they must first reform society before they can reform themselves."*
> _---Bernard Shaw_
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most libertarians I've met are quite enthusiastic about community and public responsibility. But we don't believe it's something that should be coerced.
Click to expand...


The primary difference between the modern American liberal and the modern American conservative/classical liberal/libertarian (little "L") is that the liberal would REQUIRE us to accept public responsible that THEY design as 'responsible'.   And they cannot understand that requiring people to adopt their version of responsible society is to deny freedom to all.   There is no private property but only that which the authority will allow you to use for your own purposes.  There is no free speech but only that with the authority deems acceptable.  There is no choice of how we will use much of what we earn or otherwise honorbly acquire because that will be decided for us.

Those of us who reject that concept can be just as concerned for the poor or less fortunate or the needs of society.  But we know that liberty requires contribution to the good of society must be voluntary, and never mandated.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you and others of your ilk are incapable of understanding is that you cannot have freedom without also having responsibility -- and that includes PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY.
> 
> The lack of same has been the bane of American society all through its history.
> 
> "I'll get mine, and the devil take the hindmost," has been its dominant note right from the beginning.
> 
> *"I insist on teaching people that they must first reform society before they can reform themselves."*
> _---Bernard Shaw_
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most libertarians I've met are quite enthusiastic about community and public responsibility. But we don't believe it's something that should be coerced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The primary difference between the modern American liberal and the modern American conservative/classical liberal/libertarian (little "L") is that the liberal would REQUIRE us to accept public responsible that THEY design as 'responsible'.   And they cannot understand that requiring people to adopt their version of responsible society is to deny freedom to all.   There is no private property but only that which the authority will allow you to use for your own purposes.  There is no free speech but only that with the authority deems acceptable.  There is no choice of how we will use much of what we earn or otherwise honorbly acquire because that will be decided for us.
> 
> Those of us who reject that concept can be just as concerned for the poor or less fortunate or the needs of society.  But we know that liberty requires contribution to the good of society must be voluntary, and never mandated.
Click to expand...


:sigh: Foxy when are you gonna learn some political science... you insist on conflating leftism with liberalism and then turn around and call them "self-described liberals".  Define "self".


You know what, I think I'm going to start calling hamburgers "ocelots"... self-described of course.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most libertarians I've met are quite enthusiastic about community and public responsibility. But we don't believe it's something that should be coerced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The primary difference between the modern American liberal and the modern American conservative/classical liberal/libertarian (little "L") is that the liberal would REQUIRE us to accept public responsible that THEY design as 'responsible'.   And they cannot understand that requiring people to adopt their version of responsible society is to deny freedom to all.   There is no private property but only that which the authority will allow you to use for your own purposes.  There is no free speech but only that with the authority deems acceptable.  There is no choice of how we will use much of what we earn or otherwise honorbly acquire because that will be decided for us.
> 
> Those of us who reject that concept can be just as concerned for the poor or less fortunate or the needs of society.  But we know that liberty requires contribution to the good of society must be voluntary, and never mandated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> :sigh: Foxy when are you gonna learn some political science... you insist on conflating leftism with liberalism and then turn around and call them "self-described liberals".  Define "self".
> 
> 
> You know what, I think I'm going to start calling hamburgers "ocelots"... self-described of course.
Click to expand...


If you describe yourself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.

If Numan describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.

If Bfgn describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.

And not one of you meet the test of what a liberal in the 18th Century would be.  Which is why, even in the present day political science class in America, 18th century liberalism is now called classical liberalism or libertarianism, and not liberalism.  I have taught a political science class in the last 20 years so I am very certain that I am on very solid ground there.  Maybe YOU need some more political science classes as well as some comprehensive American history courses.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you and others of your ilk are incapable of understanding is that you cannot have freedom without also having responsibility -- and that includes PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY.
> 
> The lack of same has been the bane of American society all through its history.
> 
> "I'll get mine, and the devil take the hindmost," has been its dominant note right from the beginning.
> 
> *"I insist on teaching people that they must first reform society before they can reform themselves."*
> _---Bernard Shaw_
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most libertarians I've met are quite enthusiastic about community and public responsibility. But we don't believe it's something that should be coerced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The primary difference between the modern American liberal and the modern American conservative/classical liberal/libertarian (little "L") is that the liberal would REQUIRE us to accept public responsible that THEY design as 'responsible'.   And they cannot understand that requiring people to adopt their version of responsible society is to deny freedom to all.   There is no private property but only that which the authority will allow you to use for your own purposes.  There is no free speech but only that with the authority deems acceptable.  There is no choice of how we will use much of what we earn or otherwise honorbly acquire because that will be decided for us.
> 
> Those of us who reject that concept can be just as concerned for the poor or less fortunate or the needs of society.  But we know that liberty requires contribution to the good of society must be voluntary, and never mandated.
Click to expand...


This is typical Ayn Rand social Darwinism. A civil society cannot survive under the rules of the jungle. But it certainly will create is a hierarchy, which is always the goal of conservatism. Going all the way back to the War on Poverty, what Sargent Shriver was faced with were the TRUE facts about poverty, not the right wing 'lazy folk' version.

But you continue to ignore posts that explain liberal principles and beliefs. WHY is that FF? Does it ruin your constant dogmatic drone that only conservatives can articulate?

Why don't you try a novel approach...educate yourself. Let's start with what was called the War on Poverty. It was totally based on opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. 

The War on Poverty was a program that any conservative should support. But right wing turds just TALK about opportunity, when all they really believe in is punishment and hatred.

The War on Poverty, what it is and isn't...

There's always the 'able bodied but lazy poor person', the 'bleeding heart liberal' who just wants to hand out other people's money and of course, the clear headed 'conservative' whose 'tough love' always saves the day. Well, I refuse to play along. If you had the intelligence and curiosity to find out what the 'War on Poverty' was about and what it wasn't about, it would save you from all the bloviation that comes out of your ass. 

When JFK's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished. 

To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action. The 'War on Poverty' was called the *Office of Economic Opportunity*. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's aims were maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)Ref


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The primary difference between the modern American liberal and the modern American conservative/classical liberal/libertarian (little "L") is that the liberal would REQUIRE us to accept public responsible that THEY design as 'responsible'.   And they cannot understand that requiring people to adopt their version of responsible society is to deny freedom to all.   There is no private property but only that which the authority will allow you to use for your own purposes.  There is no free speech but only that with the authority deems acceptable.  There is no choice of how we will use much of what we earn or otherwise honorbly acquire because that will be decided for us.
> 
> Those of us who reject that concept can be just as concerned for the poor or less fortunate or the needs of society.  But we know that liberty requires contribution to the good of society must be voluntary, and never mandated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :sigh: Foxy when are you gonna learn some political science... you insist on conflating leftism with liberalism and then turn around and call them "self-described liberals".  Define "self".
> 
> 
> You know what, I think I'm going to start calling hamburgers "ocelots"... self-described of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you describe yourself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.
> 
> If Numan describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.
> 
> If Bfgn describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.
> 
> And not one of you meet the test of what a liberal in the 18th Century would be.  Which is why, even in the present day political science class in America, 18th century liberalism is now called classical liberalism or libertarianism, and not liberalism.  I have taught a political science class in the last 20 years so I am very certain that I am on very solid ground there.  Maybe YOU need some more political science classes as well as some comprehensive American history courses.
Click to expand...


I shudder to think, but I hope you're a good enough teacher to know that the goal of teaching is to get one's students to think (for themselves), rather than to simply parrot their prof's POV.  Because you seem to have an obsession with labels wherein any description of a philosophy somehow immediately morphs into blanket labels to hang on specific people.

And we all know the function of this cheap rhetorical trick --the people then become the proxy for the philosophy and demonized; the label then becomes tainted, even at the expense of morphing the entire meaning of the word; and then with the opposition thus polarized into a demon, they can be summarily eliminated by all that is good and holy, and "our side" walks off with the entire cake.  Thus you have the loyal soldiers all over this (and other) message board(s) screaming "libtards" and "commies" and blah blah you know the drill.  Even personal traits get guilt-by-association-ed into a trait of that political philosophy, as if Anthony Weiner engages in sexting as a direct causal result of some political philosophy.

Then you can even then claim the original term for yourself under a new name and call it "classical Liberalism".  Pffft.

Orwell called these the Two Minutes Hate and Doublethink, respectively.  They're not new, but they are transparent.


----------



## Dragonlady

Every time there is a post about liberals on this board, the right-wingers come out of the woodwork to tell us what liberals are, what we think, and how we react to everything.  Then other right-wingers come on this board and agree with them, and then the slag-fest begins.

Conservatives are clueless when it comes to what liberals and what we stand for but that doesn't stop them from deciding what we do and do not believe, or what type of government we like.

Foxy says that forcing people to buy health insurance is infringing on your freedom.  In my opinion, the fact that I have government funded health care, INCREASES my freedom.  I don't have to worry about how to pay for medical care when (not if, when) I get sick.  If I am faced with catastrophic illness, it won't bankrupt me or my family.  That is freedom that Americans cannot know.

I am free to choose my doctor, my hospital, where I go for treatment, and many other things, but I am forced to buy into my government health care.  I am old enough to remember when there was no Canada Health Act, and what that meant when my aunt got cancer.  My "lack of freedom" on health insurance is a boon, not a loss of freedom.


----------



## Trajan

thread reactivated....


----------



## Foxfyre

Oh good.  Thanks Traj.  I thought it being closed must have been an accident.

Okay.....moving along here. . . .


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> :sigh: Foxy when are you gonna learn some political science... you insist on conflating leftism with liberalism and then turn around and call them "self-described liberals".  Define "self".
> 
> 
> You know what, I think I'm going to start calling hamburgers "ocelots"... self-described of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you describe yourself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.
> 
> If Numan describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.
> 
> If Bfgn describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.
> 
> And not one of you meet the test of what a liberal in the 18th Century would be.  Which is why, even in the present day political science class in America, 18th century liberalism is now called classical liberalism or libertarianism, and not liberalism.  I have taught a political science class in the last 20 years so I am very certain that I am on very solid ground there.  Maybe YOU need some more political science classes as well as some comprehensive American history courses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I shudder to think, but I hope you're a good enough teacher to know that the goal of teaching is to get one's students to think (for themselves), rather than to simply parrot their prof's POV.  Because you seem to have an obsession with labels wherein any description of a philosophy somehow immediately morphs into blanket labels to hang on specific people.
> 
> And we all know the function of this cheap rhetorical trick --the people then become the proxy for the philosophy and demonized; the label then becomes tainted, even at the expense of morphing the entire meaning of the word; and then with the opposition thus polarized into a demon, they can be summarily eliminated by all that is good and holy, and "our side" walks off with the entire cake.  Thus you have the loyal soldiers all over this (and other) message board(s) screaming "libtards" and "commies" and blah blah you know the drill.  Even personal traits get guilt-by-association-ed into a trait of that political philosophy, as if Anthony Weiner engages in sexting as a direct causal result of some political philosophy.
> 
> Then you can even then claim the original term for yourself under a new name and call it "classical Liberalism".  Pffft.
> 
> Orwell called these the Two Minutes Hate and Doublethink, respectively.  They're not new, but they are transparent.
Click to expand...


As you by implication are demonizing me with the implication that I personally am changing the definition for the purpose of demonizing others?   Yeah, that is definitely a Orwellian and/or Alinsky tactic all right.  But I don't do that.

I do not and have NEVER used or condoned such terms as libtard or demorat or any of the other uncomplimentary adjectives utilized by some members.  I think using such terms by either side may be used to save time when they are intended to show contempt, or maybe it is just fun for them, but they invariably weaken the members' argument and rather than being clever, more often appear juvenile to the casual observor.   (Once you get to know the people, you can get around the language better, but I still think it unproductive.)

But I am certainly a good enough teacher to know that words and language and definitions change over time.

We don't even need to look at all the words that used to be perfectly acceptable to use:  Policeman, fireman, chairman, mankind, etc. that are no longer politically correct.  (I still use them all however.)

But once, 'artificial' meant full of artistic or technical skill.  Doesn't mean that now does it?

"Nice" once meant someone who was ignorant or unaware.

"Awful" once meant full of awe.

"Brave" once meant bravado or pretense at bravery.

"Manufactured" used to mean made by hand by craftsmen.  Now that is referred to as 'hand made' while 'manufactured' means made by machine.

Counterfeit once meant a perfect copy.  It has a much different connotation these days.

Affluent once meant freely flowing or a great quantity.  We think of something much different now.

I don't even need to discuss such words as 'gay' or 'queer' that even in our lifetime once had no homosexual connotations whatsoever.  Or the images that come to mind when we use words like floppy, disc, windows, reboot, virus, hard drive, software, programs, applications that never would have come to mind even 30 years ago.

There are thousands of other examples we could use to illustrate how words and language changes over time.

That I recognize that the definitions of liberal and conservative have also changed over time, most especially here in America, and because I know and teach that the term 'classical liberal' was coined specifically because of that, does not make me either evil nor disingenuous.  And I would certainly hope that our education system is at least as aware of that as I am.


----------



## AVG-JOE

CrusaderFrank said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is you're a twisted plagiarizer too stupid to use your own words...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what President Kennedy meant when he said "ask not..." or are you going to twist his words to serve YOUR agenda, and not his?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He meant "You didn't build that!"
Click to expand...


Have you guys figured out that Obama was referring to public infrastructure and NOT the man's business when he made that comment, or are you still having fun sittin' and spinnin'?


----------



## Trajan

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most libertarians I've met are quite enthusiastic about community and public responsibility. But we don't believe it's something that should be coerced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The primary difference between the modern American liberal and the modern American conservative/classical liberal/libertarian (little "L") is that the liberal would REQUIRE us to accept public responsible that THEY design as 'responsible'.   And they cannot understand that requiring people to adopt their version of responsible society is to deny freedom to all.   There is no private property but only that which the authority will allow you to use for your own purposes.  There is no free speech but only that with the authority deems acceptable.  There is no choice of how we will use much of what we earn or otherwise honorbly acquire because that will be decided for us.
> 
> Those of us who reject that concept can be just as concerned for the poor or less fortunate or the needs of society.  But we know that liberty requires contribution to the good of society must be voluntary, and never mandated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is typical Ayn Rand social Darwinism. A civil society cannot survive under the rules of the jungle. But it certainly will create is a hierarchy, which is always the goal of conservatism. Going all the way back to the War on Poverty, what Sargent Shriver was faced with were the TRUE facts about poverty, not the right wing 'lazy folk' version.
> 
> But you continue to ignore posts that explain liberal principles and beliefs. WHY is that FF? Does it ruin your constant dogmatic drone that only conservatives can articulate?
> 
> Why don't you try a novel approach...educate yourself. Let's start with what was called the War on Poverty. It was totally based on opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment.
> 
> The War on Poverty was a program that any conservative should support. But right wing turds just TALK about opportunity, when all they really believe in is punishment and hatred.
> 
> The War on Poverty, what it is and isn't...
> 
> There's always the 'able bodied but lazy poor person', the 'bleeding heart liberal' who just wants to hand out other people's money and of course, the clear headed 'conservative' whose 'tough love' always saves the day. Well, I refuse to play along. If you had the intelligence and curiosity to find out what the 'War on Poverty' was about and what it wasn't about, it would save you from all the bloviation that comes out of your ass.
> 
> When JFK's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.
> 
> To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action. The 'War on Poverty' was called the *Office of Economic Opportunity*. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's aims were maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)Ref
Click to expand...






> The War on Poverty was a program that any conservative should support. *But right wing turds just TALK about opportunity, when all they really believe in is punishment and hatred*.



I can't think of a better example that the OP speaks to than what you just posted above ( my emphasis) .


----------



## RKMBrown

trajan said:


> bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> the primary difference between the modern american liberal and the modern american conservative/classical liberal/libertarian (little "l") is that the liberal would require us to accept public responsible that they design as 'responsible'.   And they cannot understand that requiring people to adopt their version of responsible society is to deny freedom to all.   There is no private property but only that which the authority will allow you to use for your own purposes.  There is no free speech but only that with the authority deems acceptable.  There is no choice of how we will use much of what we earn or otherwise honorbly acquire because that will be decided for us.
> 
> Those of us who reject that concept can be just as concerned for the poor or less fortunate or the needs of society.  But we know that liberty requires contribution to the good of society must be voluntary, and never mandated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is typical ayn rand social darwinism. A civil society cannot survive under the rules of the jungle. But it certainly will create is a hierarchy, which is always the goal of conservatism. Going all the way back to the war on poverty, what sargent shriver was faced with were the true facts about poverty, not the right wing 'lazy folk' version.
> 
> But you continue to ignore posts that explain liberal principles and beliefs. Why is that ff? Does it ruin your constant dogmatic drone that only conservatives can articulate?
> 
> Why don't you try a novel approach...educate yourself. Let's start with what was called the war on poverty. It was totally based on opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment.
> 
> The war on poverty was a program that any conservative should support. But right wing turds just talk about opportunity, when all they really believe in is punishment and hatred.
> 
> The war on poverty, what it is and isn't...
> 
> There's always the 'able bodied but lazy poor person', the 'bleeding heart liberal' who just wants to hand out other people's money and of course, the clear headed 'conservative' whose 'tough love' always saves the day. Well, i refuse to play along. If you had the intelligence and curiosity to find out what the 'war on poverty' was about and what it wasn't about, it would save you from all the bloviation that comes out of your ass.
> 
> When jfk's brother-in law sargent shriver accepted lbj's challenge and took on the 'war on poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a huge segment of the poor fit the true definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.
> 
> To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...sargent shriver. But i hate to disappoint you. Sargent shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action. The 'war on poverty' was called the *office of economic opportunity*. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's aims were maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as vista, job corps, community action program, and head start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand up, not a hand out. Even when johnson effectively pulled the plug on the war on poverty to fund the war in vietnam, shriver fought on and won. During the shriver years more americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (the clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)ref
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the war on poverty was a program that any conservative should support. *but right wing turds just talk about opportunity, when all they really believe in is punishment and hatred*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i can't think of a better example that the op speaks to than what you just posted above ( my emphasis) .
Click to expand...

qft


----------



## Foxfyre

AVG-JOE said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what President Kennedy meant when he said "ask not..." or are you going to twist his words to serve YOUR agenda, and not his?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He meant "You didn't build that!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you guys figured out that Obama was referring to public infrastructure and NOT the man's business when he made that comment, or are you still having fun sittin' and spinnin'?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Okd7CsytE]sit n spin - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Have you figured out that his implication was that nobody can take credit for the business they built because somebody else built the infrastructure is just as offensive?   Or his suggestion that we all haven't contributed to the building of the infrastructure?  Or if there was no commerce and industry, built by the hard work, imagination, creativity, inspiration, and dedication of citizens willing to risk sometimes everything they have to do that, there would be no need for infrastructure?

That his intent was to diminish individual initative and accomplishment in favor of the collective?

And THAT is why liberalism, as it is defined in America today, is in such disfavor with those who still value the ideals and concepts the Founders wrote into the Constitution.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you describe yourself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.
> 
> If Numan describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.
> 
> If Bfgn describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.
> 
> And not one of you meet the test of what a liberal in the 18th Century would be.  Which is why, even in the present day political science class in America, 18th century liberalism is now called classical liberalism or libertarianism, and not liberalism.  I have taught a political science class in the last 20 years so I am very certain that I am on very solid ground there.  Maybe YOU need some more political science classes as well as some comprehensive American history courses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I shudder to think, but I hope you're a good enough teacher to know that the goal of teaching is to get one's students to think (for themselves), rather than to simply parrot their prof's POV.  Because you seem to have an obsession with labels wherein any description of a philosophy somehow immediately morphs into blanket labels to hang on specific people.
> 
> And we all know the function of this cheap rhetorical trick --the people then become the proxy for the philosophy and demonized; the label then becomes tainted, even at the expense of morphing the entire meaning of the word; and then with the opposition thus polarized into a demon, they can be summarily eliminated by all that is good and holy, and "our side" walks off with the entire cake.  Thus you have the loyal soldiers all over this (and other) message board(s) screaming "libtards" and "commies" and blah blah you know the drill.  Even personal traits get guilt-by-association-ed into a trait of that political philosophy, as if Anthony Weiner engages in sexting as a direct causal result of some political philosophy.
> 
> Then you can even then claim the original term for yourself under a new name and call it "classical Liberalism".  Pffft.
> 
> Orwell called these the Two Minutes Hate and Doublethink, respectively.  They're not new, but they are transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you by implication are demonizing me with the implication that I personally am changing the definition for the purpose of demonizing others?   Yeah, that is definitely a Orwellian and/or Alinsky tactic all right.  But I don't do that.
> 
> I do not and have NEVER used or condoned such terms as libtard or demorat or any of the other uncomplimentary adjectives utilized by some members.  I think using such terms by either side may be used to save time when they are intended to show contempt, or maybe it is just fun for them, but they invariably weaken the members' argument and rather than being clever, more often appear juvenile to the casual observor.   (Once you get to know the people, you can get around the language better, but I still think it unproductive.)
> 
> But I am certainly a good enough teacher to know that words and language and definitions change over time.
> 
> We don't even need to look at all the words that used to be perfectly acceptable to use:  Policeman, fireman, chairman, mankind, etc. that are no longer politically correct.  (I still use them all however.)
> 
> But once, 'artificial' meant full of artistic or technical skill.  Doesn't mean that now does it?
> 
> "Nice" once meant someone who was ignorant or unaware.
> 
> "Awful" once meant full of awe.
> 
> "Brave" once meant bravado or pretense at bravery.
> 
> "Manufactured" used to mean made by hand by craftsmen.  Now that is referred to as 'hand made' while 'manufactured' means made by machine.
> 
> Counterfeit once meant a perfect copy.  It has a much different connotation these days.
> 
> Affluent once meant freely flowing or a great quantity.  We think of something much different now.
> 
> I don't even need to discuss such words as 'gay' or 'queer' that even in our lifetime once had no homosexual connotations whatsoever.  Or the images that come to mind when we use words like floppy, disc, windows, reboot, virus, hard drive, software, programs, applications that never would have come to mind even 30 years ago.
> 
> There are thousands of other examples we could use to illustrate how words and language changes over time.
> 
> That I recognize that the definitions of liberal and conservative have also changed over time, most especially here in America, and because I know and teach that the term 'classical liberal' was coined specifically because of that, does not make me either evil nor disingenuous.  And I would certainly hope that our education system is at least as aware of that as I am.
Click to expand...


-- and you're doing it again, Foxy.  You took a general observation about a philosophical manipulation of language and transformed it into the personal, as if I'm accusing you.  That fallacy --the practice of transforming the general into the personal-- is the only thing I posted that referred specifically to you. I don't know why this distinction has to be so elusive.   

The rest was about this psycho-manipulative trap of language which is used ("which is used", not "that _you _use") to eliminate one's (<<"_one's_", not "_your_") adversary.  You didn't build that; it comes originally out of the Joe McCarthy era and it's fed by pandering politicians and gadfly talking heads on electronic media.  But it's a pattern too many fall into, and when they do, there goes discourse.

So stop reducing this to the personal.  I'm describing a rhetorical fallacy that we can choose to run with, or choose not to.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I shudder to think, but I hope you're a good enough teacher to know that the goal of teaching is to get one's students to think (for themselves), rather than to simply parrot their prof's POV.  Because you seem to have an obsession with labels wherein any description of a philosophy somehow immediately morphs into blanket labels to hang on specific people.
> 
> And we all know the function of this cheap rhetorical trick --the people then become the proxy for the philosophy and demonized; the label then becomes tainted, even at the expense of morphing the entire meaning of the word; and then with the opposition thus polarized into a demon, they can be summarily eliminated by all that is good and holy, and "our side" walks off with the entire cake.  Thus you have the loyal soldiers all over this (and other) message board(s) screaming "libtards" and "commies" and blah blah you know the drill.  Even personal traits get guilt-by-association-ed into a trait of that political philosophy, as if Anthony Weiner engages in sexting as a direct causal result of some political philosophy.
> 
> Then you can even then claim the original term for yourself under a new name and call it "classical Liberalism".  Pffft.
> 
> Orwell called these the Two Minutes Hate and Doublethink, respectively.  They're not new, but they are transparent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you by implication are demonizing me with the implication that I personally am changing the definition for the purpose of demonizing others?   Yeah, that is definitely a Orwellian and/or Alinsky tactic all right.  But I don't do that.
> 
> I do not and have NEVER used or condoned such terms as libtard or demorat or any of the other uncomplimentary adjectives utilized by some members.  I think using such terms by either side may be used to save time when they are intended to show contempt, or maybe it is just fun for them, but they invariably weaken the members' argument and rather than being clever, more often appear juvenile to the casual observor.   (Once you get to know the people, you can get around the language better, but I still think it unproductive.)
> 
> But I am certainly a good enough teacher to know that words and language and definitions change over time.
> 
> We don't even need to look at all the words that used to be perfectly acceptable to use:  Policeman, fireman, chairman, mankind, etc. that are no longer politically correct.  (I still use them all however.)
> 
> But once, 'artificial' meant full of artistic or technical skill.  Doesn't mean that now does it?
> 
> "Nice" once meant someone who was ignorant or unaware.
> 
> "Awful" once meant full of awe.
> 
> "Brave" once meant bravado or pretense at bravery.
> 
> "Manufactured" used to mean made by hand by craftsmen.  Now that is referred to as 'hand made' while 'manufactured' means made by machine.
> 
> Counterfeit once meant a perfect copy.  It has a much different connotation these days.
> 
> Affluent once meant freely flowing or a great quantity.  We think of something much different now.
> 
> I don't even need to discuss such words as 'gay' or 'queer' that even in our lifetime once had no homosexual connotations whatsoever.  Or the images that come to mind when we use words like floppy, disc, windows, reboot, virus, hard drive, software, programs, applications that never would have come to mind even 30 years ago.
> 
> There are thousands of other examples we could use to illustrate how words and language changes over time.
> 
> That I recognize that the definitions of liberal and conservative have also changed over time, most especially here in America, and because I know and teach that the term 'classical liberal' was coined specifically because of that, does not make me either evil nor disingenuous.  And I would certainly hope that our education system is at least as aware of that as I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- and you're doing it again, Foxy.  You took a general observation about a philosophical manipulation of language and transformed it into the personal, as if I'm accusing you.  That fallacy --the practice of transforming the general into the personal-- is the only thing I posted that referred specifically to you. I don't know why this distinction has to be so elusive.
> 
> The rest was about this psycho-manipulative trap of language which is used ("which is used", not "that _you _use") to eliminate one's (<<"_one's_", not "_your_") adversary.  You didn't build that; it comes originally out of the Joe McCarthy era and it's fed by pandering politicians and gadfly talking heads on electronic media.  But it's a pattern too many fall into, and when they do, there goes discourse.
> 
> So stop reducing this to the personal.  It's a rhetorical fallacy that we can choose to run with, or choose to ignore.
Click to expand...


You started it.  You accused me of using an Orwellian 'cheap rhetorical trick' with the implication that I manufactured the term 'classical liberal' and refuse to acknowledge my argument defending my point of view as well as the term 'classical liberal.'  Just as you earlier refused to even look at the very scholarly and competent definitions I provided from excellent sources for what 'classical liberalism' is and why it is the correct term in modern vernacular.  You even insinuated that I don't value people thinking for themselves and earlier implied that I needed more education in poliical science.  And now you accuse me of making it personal and deny that you did?  Typical liberalism at its best.  And why it is in such disfavor.


----------



## Immanuel

Dragonlady said:


> Every time there is a post about liberals on this board, the right-wingers come out of the woodwork to tell us what liberals are, what we think, and how we react to everything.  Then other right-wingers come on this board and agree with them, and then the slag-fest begins.
> 
> Conservatives are clueless when it comes to what liberals and what we stand for but that doesn't stop them from deciding what we do and do not believe, or what type of government we like.
> 
> Foxy says that forcing people to buy health insurance is infringing on your freedom.  In my opinion, the fact that I have government funded health care, INCREASES my freedom.  I don't have to worry about how to pay for medical care when (not if, when) I get sick.  If I am faced with catastrophic illness, it won't bankrupt me or my family.  That is freedom that Americans cannot know.
> 
> I am free to choose my doctor, my hospital, where I go for treatment, and many other things, but I am forced to buy into my government health care.  I am old enough to remember when there was no Canada Health Act, and what that meant when my aunt got cancer.  My "lack of freedom" on health insurance is a boon, not a loss of freedom.



Holy shit!

Do you even read the crap that liberals say and think about conservatives on this site?  Hell, you're pretty damned bad yourself, and just read one of bfgrn's posts in this thread, and you can post the crap you just posted about conservatives?  You liberals are so stuck up.  You actually have the balls to post the shit that you just posted and then whine about conservatives?  You can't be female (Dragonlady) because you have got to have gonads the size of coconuts.

Immie


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you by implication are demonizing me with the implication that I personally am changing the definition for the purpose of demonizing others?   Yeah, that is definitely a Orwellian and/or Alinsky tactic all right.  But I don't do that.
> 
> I do not and have NEVER used or condoned such terms as libtard or demorat or any of the other uncomplimentary adjectives utilized by some members.  I think using such terms by either side may be used to save time when they are intended to show contempt, or maybe it is just fun for them, but they invariably weaken the members' argument and rather than being clever, more often appear juvenile to the casual observor.   (Once you get to know the people, you can get around the language better, but I still think it unproductive.)
> 
> But I am certainly a good enough teacher to know that words and language and definitions change over time.
> 
> We don't even need to look at all the words that used to be perfectly acceptable to use:  Policeman, fireman, chairman, mankind, etc. that are no longer politically correct.  (I still use them all however.)
> 
> But once, 'artificial' meant full of artistic or technical skill.  Doesn't mean that now does it?
> 
> "Nice" once meant someone who was ignorant or unaware.
> 
> "Awful" once meant full of awe.
> 
> "Brave" once meant bravado or pretense at bravery.
> 
> "Manufactured" used to mean made by hand by craftsmen.  Now that is referred to as 'hand made' while 'manufactured' means made by machine.
> 
> Counterfeit once meant a perfect copy.  It has a much different connotation these days.
> 
> Affluent once meant freely flowing or a great quantity.  We think of something much different now.
> 
> I don't even need to discuss such words as 'gay' or 'queer' that even in our lifetime once had no homosexual connotations whatsoever.  Or the images that come to mind when we use words like floppy, disc, windows, reboot, virus, hard drive, software, programs, applications that never would have come to mind even 30 years ago.
> 
> There are thousands of other examples we could use to illustrate how words and language changes over time.
> 
> That I recognize that the definitions of liberal and conservative have also changed over time, most especially here in America, and because I know and teach that the term 'classical liberal' was coined specifically because of that, does not make me either evil nor disingenuous.  And I would certainly hope that our education system is at least as aware of that as I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- and you're doing it again, Foxy.  You took a general observation about a philosophical manipulation of language and transformed it into the personal, as if I'm accusing you.  That fallacy --the practice of transforming the general into the personal-- is the only thing I posted that referred specifically to you. I don't know why this distinction has to be so elusive.
> 
> The rest was about this psycho-manipulative trap of language which is used ("which is used", not "that _you _use") to eliminate one's (<<"_one's_", not "_your_") adversary.  You didn't build that; it comes originally out of the Joe McCarthy era and it's fed by pandering politicians and gadfly talking heads on electronic media.  But it's a pattern too many fall into, and when they do, there goes discourse.
> 
> So stop reducing this to the personal.  It's a rhetorical fallacy that we can choose to run with, or choose to ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You started it.  You accused me of using an Orwellian 'cheap rhetorical trick' with the implication that I manufactured the term 'classical liberal' and refuse to acknowledge my argument defending my point of view as well as the term 'classical liberal.'  Just as you earlier refused to even look at the very scholarly and competent definitions I provided from excellent sources for what 'classical liberalism' is and why it is the correct term in modern vernacular.  You even insinuated that I don't value people thinking for themselves and earlier implied that I needed more education in poliical science.  And now you accuse me of making it personal and deny that you did?  Typical liberalism at its best.  And why it is in such disfavor.
Click to expand...


And once again my point either sails over your head or, more likely, you're ducking out of its way.  If you're going to continue to play dumb I'm wasting my time.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- and you're doing it again, Foxy.  You took a general observation about a philosophical manipulation of language and transformed it into the personal, as if I'm accusing you.  That fallacy --the practice of transforming the general into the personal-- is the only thing I posted that referred specifically to you. I don't know why this distinction has to be so elusive.
> 
> The rest was about this psycho-manipulative trap of language which is used ("which is used", not "that _you _use") to eliminate one's (<<"_one's_", not "_your_") adversary.  You didn't build that; it comes originally out of the Joe McCarthy era and it's fed by pandering politicians and gadfly talking heads on electronic media.  But it's a pattern too many fall into, and when they do, there goes discourse.
> 
> So stop reducing this to the personal.  It's a rhetorical fallacy that we can choose to run with, or choose to ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You started it.  You accused me of using an Orwellian 'cheap rhetorical trick' with the implication that I manufactured the term 'classical liberal' and refuse to acknowledge my argument defending my point of view as well as the term 'classical liberal.'  Just as you earlier refused to even look at the very scholarly and competent definitions I provided from excellent sources for what 'classical liberalism' is and why it is the correct term in modern vernacular.  You even insinuated that I don't value people thinking for themselves and earlier implied that I needed more education in poliical science.  And now you accuse me of making it personal and deny that you did?  Typical liberalism at its best.  And why it is in such disfavor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again my point either sails over your head or, more likely, you're ducking out of its way.  If you're going to continue to play dumb I'm wasting my time.
Click to expand...


Well I am obviously entirely too dumb--not that we're making this personal of course--to understand what you are saying as you believe you are saying it, and if I have misrepresented what you have said in any way I apologize.  I have done my damndest to discuss the topic and I am obviously too dumb to explain my point of view to you as you have yet to accurately acknowledge any point I have made.  I am very grateful that others are getting it though.

But in the interest of not wasting time, I am agreeable to disagree and not bore to death the rest of the members discussing the topic.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you describe yourself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.
> 
> If Numan describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.
> 
> If Bfgn describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.
> 
> And not one of you meet the test of what a liberal in the 18th Century would be.  Which is why, even in the present day political science class in America, 18th century liberalism is now called classical liberalism or libertarianism, and not liberalism.  I have taught a political science class in the last 20 years so I am very certain that I am on very solid ground there.  Maybe YOU need some more political science classes as well as some comprehensive American history courses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I shudder to think, but I hope you're a good enough teacher to know that the goal of teaching is to get one's students to think (for themselves), rather than to simply parrot their prof's POV.  Because you seem to have an obsession with labels wherein any description of a philosophy somehow immediately morphs into blanket labels to hang on specific people.
> 
> And we all know the function of this cheap rhetorical trick --the people then become the proxy for the philosophy and demonized; the label then becomes tainted, even at the expense of morphing the entire meaning of the word; and then with the opposition thus polarized into a demon, they can be summarily eliminated by all that is good and holy, and "our side" walks off with the entire cake.  Thus you have the loyal soldiers all over this (and other) message board(s) screaming "libtards" and "commies" and blah blah you know the drill.  Even personal traits get guilt-by-association-ed into a trait of that political philosophy, as if Anthony Weiner engages in sexting as a direct causal result of some political philosophy.
> 
> Then you can even then claim the original term for yourself under a new name and call it "classical Liberalism".  Pffft.
> 
> Orwell called these the Two Minutes Hate and Doublethink, respectively.  They're not new, but they are transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you by implication are demonizing me with the implication that I personally am changing the definition for the purpose of demonizing others?   Yeah, that is definitely a Orwellian and/or Alinsky tactic all right.  But I don't do that.
> 
> I do not and have NEVER used or condoned such terms as libtard or demorat or any of the other uncomplimentary adjectives utilized by some members.  I think using such terms by either side may be used to save time when they are intended to show contempt, or maybe it is just fun for them, but they invariably weaken the members' argument and rather than being clever, more often appear juvenile to the casual observor.   (Once you get to know the people, you can get around the language better, but I still think it unproductive.)
> 
> But I am certainly a good enough teacher to know that words and language and definitions change over time.
> 
> We don't even need to look at all the words that used to be perfectly acceptable to use:  Policeman, fireman, chairman, mankind, etc. that are no longer politically correct.  (I still use them all however.)
> 
> But once, 'artificial' meant full of artistic or technical skill.  Doesn't mean that now does it?
> 
> "Nice" once meant someone who was ignorant or unaware.
> 
> "Awful" once meant full of awe.
> 
> "Brave" once meant bravado or pretense at bravery.
> 
> "Manufactured" used to mean made by hand by craftsmen.  Now that is referred to as 'hand made' while 'manufactured' means made by machine.
> 
> Counterfeit once meant a perfect copy.  It has a much different connotation these days.
> 
> Affluent once meant freely flowing or a great quantity.  We think of something much different now.
> 
> I don't even need to discuss such words as 'gay' or 'queer' that even in our lifetime once had no homosexual connotations whatsoever.  Or the images that come to mind when we use words like floppy, disc, windows, reboot, virus, hard drive, software, programs, applications that never would have come to mind even 30 years ago.
> 
> There are thousands of other examples we could use to illustrate how words and language changes over time.
> 
> That I recognize that the definitions of liberal and conservative have also changed over time, most especially here in America, and because I know and teach that the term 'classical liberal' was coined specifically because of that, does not make me either evil nor disingenuous.  And I would certainly hope that our education system is at least as aware of that as I am.
Click to expand...


The term "entitlement" originally referred to aristocrats. Aristocrats had titles, and they thought that they were thereby entitled to various things, particularly the deference of the common people. Conservative rhetors decided that the people who actually claim entitlement are people on welfare. They furthermore created an empirically false association between welfare and dependency.

And you continue to parrot that false association.


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is typical ayn rand social darwinism. A civil society cannot survive under the rules of the jungle. But it certainly will create is a hierarchy, which is always the goal of conservatism. Going all the way back to the war on poverty, what sargent shriver was faced with were the true facts about poverty, not the right wing 'lazy folk' version.
> 
> But you continue to ignore posts that explain liberal principles and beliefs. Why is that ff? Does it ruin your constant dogmatic drone that only conservatives can articulate?
> 
> Why don't you try a novel approach...educate yourself. Let's start with what was called the war on poverty. It was totally based on opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment.
> 
> The war on poverty was a program that any conservative should support. But right wing turds just talk about opportunity, when all they really believe in is punishment and hatred.
> 
> The war on poverty, what it is and isn't...
> 
> There's always the 'able bodied but lazy poor person', the 'bleeding heart liberal' who just wants to hand out other people's money and of course, the clear headed 'conservative' whose 'tough love' always saves the day. Well, i refuse to play along. If you had the intelligence and curiosity to find out what the 'war on poverty' was about and what it wasn't about, it would save you from all the bloviation that comes out of your ass.
> 
> When jfk's brother-in law sargent shriver accepted lbj's challenge and took on the 'war on poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a huge segment of the poor fit the true definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.
> 
> To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...sargent shriver. But i hate to disappoint you. Sargent shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action. The 'war on poverty' was called the *office of economic opportunity*. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's aims were maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as vista, job corps, community action program, and head start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand up, not a hand out. Even when johnson effectively pulled the plug on the war on poverty to fund the war in vietnam, shriver fought on and won. During the shriver years more americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (the clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)ref
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the war on poverty was a program that any conservative should support. *but right wing turds just talk about opportunity, when all they really believe in is punishment and hatred*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i can't think of a better example that the op speaks to than what you just posted above ( my emphasis) .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> qft
Click to expand...


It's the truth. I really wish it weren't. But I will never back down from defending the least among us. You right wing turds have NO problem telling liberals what they think, do and say, or pigeonholing them to fit your agenda to create an aristocracy. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have been called a libtard or Marxist.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> ... the least among us.



Well you are the expert on that subject.


----------



## Foxfyre

Entitlement does not mean welfare to me.  Entitlement to the aristocracy meant that they had a right to certain things being provided for them by virtue of who they are, not by virtue of what they earned, whether those things were granted by the monarchy or other government authority or via those who were subjects of the aristocrats.

Like many other words I mentioned earlier, the definition has shifted in modern usage in America and now means that which the government is obligated to pay to the citizen, whether he earned it or not, and/or what some want the government to be obligated to provide for the citizens whether they earn it or not.

In modern day America the liberals are much more likely to push for more and more entitlements whether it is via abortions at Planned Parenthood or Head Start Programs or everybody goes to college or cradle to grave security from the government.

Classical liberals are far more likely to push for reduced, minimal, or no government entitlements and see that the individual is entitled only to have his/her unalienable rights secured and to otherwise live his/her life as he or she chooses.


----------



## Bfgrn

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can talk about whatever you want. Clearly, you don't _want_ to talk about the problems people have with liberalism (the topic), preferring to point out the problems you have with conservatism instead. I guess you're just assuming that anyone criticizing liberalism is implicitly supporting conservatism, and perhaps thinking of your comments as a 'counter-attack'. But that's not a valid assumption and, as I mentioned, the faults of conservatives are really no excuse for the faults of liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is you are blaming liberals for what conservatives support, and liberals oppose. Corporatism is a glaring example. We now have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Citizens United vs. FEC, which basically says America should be run by corporations was vehemently opposed by liberals on the court and liberals in general. The health care bill; liberals and progressives pushed for single payer, or at least a public option, NOT the individual mandate. That was the construct of conservatives, not liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm blaming liberals for what they've done, and PPACA is all theirs. Blaming it on conservatives is, again, a diversion. The responsibility lies with the leaders who voted for it.
Click to expand...


Liberals did not author the PPACA. Liberals and progressives were shut out on the health care bill. Do we have single payer? Do we have a public option?? Do we have Medicare for all???

What you are saying is if you are in the Democratic Party you MUST be labeled a 'liberal'. That is bullshit.

You REALLY don't comprehend what Charles Krauthammer is saying. I will re-post it: Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."

That conservative ascendancy is not limited to the Republican party. BOTH parties have shifted to the right over the last 30 years. I remember voting for Jacob Javits, a Republican Senator who was proud to be a liberal Republican. Matter of fact, LBJ and J Edgar Hoover kept him off the Warren Commission because he was TOO liberal.


"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.


----------



## Pogo

Bfgrn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is you are blaming liberals for what conservatives support, and liberals oppose. Corporatism is a glaring example. We now have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Citizens United vs. FEC, which basically says America should be run by corporations was vehemently opposed by liberals on the court and liberals in general. The health care bill; liberals and progressives pushed for single payer, or at least a public option, NOT the individual mandate. That was the construct of conservatives, not liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm blaming liberals for what they've done, and PPACA is all theirs. Blaming it on conservatives is, again, a diversion. The responsibility lies with the leaders who voted for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals did not author the PPACA. Liberals and progressives were shut out on the health care bill. Do we have single payer? Do we have a public option?? Do we have Medicare for all???
> 
> *What you are saying is if you are in the Democratic Party you MUST be labeled a 'liberal'. That is bullshit.*
> 
> You REALLY don't comprehend what Charles Krauthammer is saying. I will re-post it: &#8220;Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
> 
> That conservative ascendancy is not limited to the Republican party. *BOTH parties have shifted to the right over the last 30 years*. I remember voting for Jacob Javits, a Republican Senator who was proud to be a liberal Republican. Matter of fact, LBJ and J Edgar Hoover kept him off the Warren Commission because he was TOO liberal.
> 
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...


Obviously this distinction is lost on many but as noted above, there are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, just as there are conservative philosophies of the left and liberal philosophies of the right.

But hey, why bother with nuance.  Let's just call them all "liberals"-slash-"Democrats"-slash-"the left" as if they're all the same thing, and pair them up against "conservatives"-slash-Republicans-slash-the "right" as if they're all the same too.


----------



## HUGGY

*Why do people hate Liberals? *

People don't hate liberals.  Those that hate liberals are not people.  They are zombies.  They are the walking dead.  They are those that hate America.  Our founding fathers were liberals by thier own definition.  The haters in our country are no different than the "good Germans" that rose thier arms and saluted Hitler.  No different at all.  We suffer these zombie fools at a great cost.


----------



## Trajan

Bfgrn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> i can't think of a better example that the op speaks to than what you just posted above ( my emphasis) .
> 
> 
> 
> qft
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the truth. I really wish it weren't. But I will never back down from defending the least among us. You right wing turds have NO problem telling liberals what they think, do and say, or pigeonholing them to fit your agenda to create an aristocracy. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have been called a libtard or Marxist.
Click to expand...


 uhm yes, ok then.... tissue? 

handle any cannisters of Zyklon B  in your previous life?


----------



## AVG-JOE

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> He meant "You didn't build that!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you guys figured out that Obama was referring to public infrastructure and NOT the man's business when he made that comment, or are you still having fun sittin' and spinnin'?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Okd7CsytE]sit n spin - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you figured out that his implication was that nobody can take credit for the business they built because somebody else built the infrastructure is just as offensive?   Or his suggestion that we all haven't contributed to the building of the infrastructure?  Or if there was no commerce and industry, built by the hard work, imagination, creativity, inspiration, and dedication of citizens willing to risk sometimes everything they have to do that, there would be no need for infrastructure?
> 
> That his intent was to diminish individual initative and accomplishment in favor of the collective?
> 
> And THAT is why liberalism, as it is defined in America today, is in such disfavor with those who still value the ideals and concepts the Founders wrote into the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Get over yourself Foxfyre!  What makes you think that's what Obama was implying, his follow up explanations?  That's you and Rush Limbaugh _inferring_ it because it furthers your political agenda.  

We are all in this together.  The idea of a 'Self-made millionaire' is BULLSHIT.  

Even Bill Gates and Mitt Romney, with all their daddy's money, could not have built their businesses without the highways, power-grids, security and other shared infrastructure that would not be possible without 'government'.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Look at how liberals, who keep insisting they're so smart and independent all drink down the Obama koolaid


----------



## Pogo

CrusaderFrank said:


> Look at how liberals, who keep insisting they're so smart and independent all drink down the Obama koolaid



-- from the guy STILL sporting a bogus quote in his sig...
::glug::glug::glug::


----------



## Toro

A better question is, why don't they?


----------



## Intense

Progressivism and Liberalism



> The Progressive assault on the limited constitutionalism of the Founders set the stage for modern liberalism and the rise of big government over the past century. Here are three must-reads and some basic Q&As to get a handle on Progressivism and Liberalism. When you're ready for more, read the primary sources yourself and explore Progressivism and Liberalism in greater depth.
> Progressivism and Liberalism





> Progressivism and Liberalism
> 
> Done with the basics? Here are the key primary sources on Progressivism and Liberalism. We've reprinted them with an introduction highlighting the key themes in each document. When you're ready for more, check out all our publications on Progressivism and Liberalism and then dive into the annotated bibliography.
> 
> Woodrow Wilson on Socialism and Democracy (1887)
> 
> Wilson, then a professor of political science, maintains that there are no principled limits to what government may do.
> Woodrow Wilson on Administration (1887)
> 
> Professor Wilson makes a revolutionary argument for a professional centralized administration, thereby setting the stage for the administrative state.
> Charles Merriam Explains Progressive Political Science (1903)
> 
> Merriams survey of political science at the turn of the century establishes beyond a doubt that Progressivism arises not in response to changing historical conditions but as a principled rejection of the Founding
> John Dewey and the Progressive Conception of Freedom (1908)
> 
> Nowhere are the full implications of the Progressive redefinition of freedom drawn out more clearly than in this excerpt.
> Teddy Roosevelts New Nationalism (1910)
> 
> Soon-to-be Progressive Party presidential candidate Teddy Roosevelt calls for a Progressive revolution in politics, economics, and civil society and a radical expansion of governmental power.
> Woodrow Wilson Asks What Is Progress? (1912)
> 
> In this presidential campaign speech, Wilson frankly describes his principles for a revolutionary reform of America rooted in a rejection of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
> Woodrow Wilsons War Message to Congress (1917)
> 
> A concise summary of the Progressives idealistic foreign policy to reshape the world: The world must be made safe for democracy.
> Primary Sources





Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institutiona think tankwhose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles. Our vision is to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish. 
About Heritage Foundation


----------



## Dot Com

Heritage Foundation=  Obamneycare


----------



## Wolfsister77

Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.

They are a Conservative think tank.


----------



## koshergrl

I hate liberals and progressives because of pukes like daws and peeballs, who are currently stroking themselves to the thought of Christians being slaughtered in Egypt, and posting things like "I don't give a shit!" and other equally vile stuff about those deaths, as we speak. I have found they are an accurate representation of most liberals.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> I hate liberals and progressives because of pukes like daws and peeballs, who are currently stroking themselves to the thought of Christians being slaughtered in Egypt, and posting things like "I don't give a shit!" and other equally vile stuff about those deaths, as we speak. I have found they are an accurate representation of most liberals.



That's a nice drama meltdown and all, but it's got nothing to do with political philosophies, which is, at least ostensibly, the topic.  Or was.


----------



## Foxfyre

Wolfsister77 said:


> Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.
> 
> They are a Conservative think tank.



At least conservatives HAVE think tanks.  And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials.   I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong.   So far crickets.

I won't lie about the excellent sources I use to support my opinions whether they be conservative (Heritage Foundation), libertarian (CATO), or liberal (Brookings Institute) and et al.  In order to pass my test as a credible source, the information provided has to hold up under scrutiny and has to be untainted by partisanship.

I do avoid using sources that exist for the purpose of exposing or challenging the opposing ideology whether those be left or right leaning.  The Heritage Foundation is not in that business.

Both Heritage and CATO are as equally tough on bad Republican initiatives as they are bad Democratic initiatives, and flawed concepts promoted as 'conservative' as they are on failed liberal initiatives.  And both are brutally honest in their conclusions.   I use Brookings (and other sources) for the credfible liberal argument because Brookings and some others (Raspbery, Camille Paglia, Michael Kinsley, et al)  have stood up under scrutiny as being among the most objective and honest left leaning groups or commentators out there.

I won't apologize for being a modern American conservative (aka classical liberal) with a point of view that I can defend or for using good sources only because they share my point of view.  I think it foolish to dismiss an honest source because of the label somebody puts on it.

And again my opinion has been that liberals cannot and will not defend their point of view but rather their entire argument most often is pointing fingers at others that they declare to be evil, greedy, selfish, wrong, bad, worse, partisan (meaning not liberal), or they did it too, yadda yadda.  And by dismissing any evidence to the contrary, they never have to challenge their own point of view.  

It is one of the primary reasons that liberalism is in such disfavor among a plurality if not a majority of Americans.

From a 2009 Gallup poll--I'll watch for something more current:



> PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.


"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group


----------



## AVG-JOE

Intense said:


> Progressivism and Liberalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Progressive assault on the limited constitutionalism of the Founders set the stage for modern liberalism and the rise of big government over the past century. Here are three must-reads and some basic Q&As to get a handle on Progressivism and Liberalism. When you're ready for more, read the primary sources yourself and explore Progressivism and Liberalism in greater depth.
> Progressivism and Liberalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressivism and Liberalism
> 
> Done with the basics? Here are the key primary sources on Progressivism and Liberalism. We've reprinted them with an introduction highlighting the key themes in each document. When you're ready for more, check out all our publications on Progressivism and Liberalism and then dive into the annotated bibliography.
> 
> Woodrow Wilson on Socialism and Democracy (1887)
> 
> Wilson, then a professor of political science, maintains that there are no principled limits to what government may do.
> Woodrow Wilson on Administration (1887)
> 
> Professor Wilson makes a revolutionary argument for a professional centralized administration, thereby setting the stage for the administrative state.
> Charles Merriam Explains Progressive Political Science (1903)
> 
> Merriams survey of political science at the turn of the century establishes beyond a doubt that Progressivism arises not in response to changing historical conditions but as a principled rejection of the Founding
> John Dewey and the Progressive Conception of Freedom (1908)
> 
> Nowhere are the full implications of the Progressive redefinition of freedom drawn out more clearly than in this excerpt.
> Teddy Roosevelts New Nationalism (1910)
> 
> Soon-to-be Progressive Party presidential candidate Teddy Roosevelt calls for a Progressive revolution in politics, economics, and civil society and a radical expansion of governmental power.
> Woodrow Wilson Asks What Is Progress? (1912)
> 
> In this presidential campaign speech, Wilson frankly describes his principles for a revolutionary reform of America rooted in a rejection of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
> Woodrow Wilsons War Message to Congress (1917)
> 
> A concise summary of the Progressives idealistic foreign policy to reshape the world: The world must be made safe for democracy.
> Primary Sources
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institutiona think tankwhose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
> 
> We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles. Our vision is to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.
> About Heritage Foundation
Click to expand...


What are 'traditional American values'?

There's no such thing - It's not like cohabitation, atheism and homosexuality didn't occur in early American history.  And it's not like todays corporate welfare queens didn't have a fine example of public risk / private profit in the American Railroad industry.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Foxfyre said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.
> 
> They are a Conservative think tank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least conservatives HAVE think tanks.  And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials.   I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong.   So far crickets.
Click to expand...


How can someone possibly show how someone else or an organization got an *opinion* wrong?

Step one is to admit that liberal opinion is JUST as valid as conservative opinion.
Step two is to accept the election results and move on.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.
> 
> They are a Conservative think tank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least conservatives HAVE think tanks.  And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials.   I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong.   So far crickets.
> 
> I won't lie about the excellent sources I use to support my opinions whether they be conservative (Heritage Foundation), libertarian (CATO), or liberal (Brookings Institute) and et al.  In order to pass my test as a credible source, the information provided has to hold up under scrutiny and has to be untainted by partisanship.
> 
> I do avoid using sources that exist for the purpose of exposing or challenging the opposing ideology whether those be left or right leaning.  The Heritage Foundation is not in that business.
> 
> Both Heritage and CATO are as equally tough on bad Republican initiatives as they are bad Democratic initiatives, and flawed concepts promoted as 'conservative' as they are on failed liberal initiatives.  And both are brutally honest in their conclusions.   I use Brookings (and other sources) for the credfible liberal argument because Brookings and some others (Raspbery, Camille Paglia, Michael Kinsley, et al)  have stood up under scrutiny as being among the most objective and honest left leaning groups or commentators out there.
> 
> I won't apologize for being a modern American conservative (aka classical liberal) with a point of view that I can defend or for using good sources only because they share my point of view.  I think it foolish to dismiss an honest source because of the label somebody puts on it.
> 
> And again my opinion has been that liberals cannot and will not defend their point of view but rather their entire argument most often is pointing fingers at others that they declare to be evil, greedy, selfish, wrong, bad, worse, partisan (meaning not liberal), or they did it too, yadda yadda.  And by dismissing any evidence to the contrary, they never have to challenge their own point of view.
> 
> It is one of the primary reasons that liberalism is in such disfavor among a plurality if not a majority of Americans.
> 
> From a 2009 Gallup poll--I'll watch for something more current:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group
Click to expand...


When you've already obfuscated and distorted the definitions of the terms, you can reach any conclusion you want.  Color me underwhelmed.


----------



## AVG-JOE

koshergrl said:


> *I hate* liberals and progressives because of pukes like daws and peeballs, who are currently stroking themselves to the thought of Christians being slaughtered in Egypt, and posting things like "I don't give a shit!" and other equally vile stuff about those deaths, as we speak. I have found they are an accurate representation of most liberals.



Pretty much sums up the black and white conservative ideology.


----------



## koshergrl

AVG-JOE said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.
> 
> They are a Conservative think tank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least conservatives HAVE think tanks.  And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials.   I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong.   So far crickets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can someone possibly show how someone else or an organization got an *opinion* wrong?
> 
> Step one is to admit that liberal opinion is JUST as valid as conservative opinion.
> Step two is to accept the election results and move on.
Click to expand...


In your progressive fantasyworld, maybe.

But not in the real world. Sorry, there are values in the world, they do mean something, and there is such a thing as *right* and *wrong*. Regardless of how you try to homogenize all behavior into one depraved soup.

And no, we don't have to accept the election results, and we don't have to move on. In fact, we're obligated to speak out and draw attention to corruption, dishonesty, and the destruction of all that (most) Americans value. 

So you move on. Move on to Cuba, or Egypt, and enjoy the fruits of your labor.


----------



## koshergrl

AVG-JOE said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I hate* liberals and progressives because of pukes like daws and peeballs, who are currently stroking themselves to the thought of Christians being slaughtered in Egypt, and posting things like "I don't give a shit!" and other equally vile stuff about those deaths, as we speak. I have found they are an accurate representation of most liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much sums up the black and white conservative ideology.
Click to expand...


Yup. And a beautiful thing it is. Values. An abhorrance of depravity, murder and all the activities that lead to those things.

Gosh, just awful. Crawl back under your slimy rock, scum.


----------



## Toro

AVG-JOE said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I hate* liberals and progressives because of pukes like daws and peeballs, who are currently stroking themselves to the thought of Christians being slaughtered in Egypt, and posting things like "I don't give a shit!" and other equally vile stuff about those deaths, as we speak. I have found they are an accurate representation of most liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much sums up the black and white conservative ideology.
Click to expand...


"Black" conservatives????

Hahaha!

Good one!


----------



## Foxfyre

AVG-JOE said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressivism and Liberalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Progressive assault on the limited constitutionalism of the Founders set the stage for modern liberalism and the rise of big government over the past century. Here are three must-reads and some basic Q&As to get a handle on Progressivism and Liberalism. When you're ready for more, read the primary sources yourself and explore Progressivism and Liberalism in greater depth.
> Progressivism and Liberalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressivism and Liberalism
> 
> Done with the basics? Here are the key primary sources on Progressivism and Liberalism. We've reprinted them with an introduction highlighting the key themes in each document. When you're ready for more, check out all our publications on Progressivism and Liberalism and then dive into the annotated bibliography.
> 
> Woodrow Wilson on Socialism and Democracy (1887)
> 
> Wilson, then a professor of political science, maintains that there are no principled limits to what government may do.
> Woodrow Wilson on Administration (1887)
> 
> Professor Wilson makes a revolutionary argument for a professional centralized administration, thereby setting the stage for the administrative state.
> Charles Merriam Explains Progressive Political Science (1903)
> 
> Merriam&#8217;s survey of political science at the turn of the century establishes beyond a doubt that Progressivism arises not in response to changing historical conditions but as a principled rejection of the Founding
> John Dewey and the Progressive Conception of Freedom (1908)
> 
> Nowhere are the full implications of the Progressive redefinition of freedom drawn out more clearly than in this excerpt.
> Teddy Roosevelt&#8217;s New Nationalism (1910)
> 
> Soon-to-be Progressive Party presidential candidate Teddy Roosevelt calls for a Progressive revolution in politics, economics, and civil society and a radical expansion of governmental power.
> Woodrow Wilson Asks &#8220;What Is Progress?&#8221; (1912)
> 
> In this presidential campaign speech, Wilson frankly describes his principles for a revolutionary reform of America rooted in a rejection of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
> Woodrow Wilson&#8217;s &#8220;War Message to Congress&#8221; (1917)
> 
> A concise summary of the Progressives&#8217; idealistic foreign policy to reshape the world: &#8220;The world must be made safe for democracy.&#8221;
> Primary Sources
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution&#8212;a think tank&#8212;whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
> 
> We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles. Our vision is to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.
> About Heritage Foundation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are 'traditional American values'?
> 
> There's no such thing - It's not like cohabitation, atheism and homosexuality didn't occur in early American history.  And it's not like todays corporate welfare queens didn't have a fine example of public risk / private profit in the American Railroad industry.
Click to expand...


Yes there IS such a thing as traditional American values:   Respect for the unalienable rights of others, marriage as the norm for society, family, Church, helping out your neighbor, working for what you receive, tell the truth, don't cheat at cards, in your marriage, or in your business dealings, be responsible and accountable and accept the consequences for the choices you make, don't expect others to clean up your messes, don't covet what your neighbor has but believe that you can aspire to have as much, love your country and the flag that symbolizes it, and appreciate the blood and treasure that so many have expended to give you the freedom to live your life honorably and free with unlimited choice to seek or create whatever opportunities are available to us.  All this has stood the test of time and has served us very well.

You'll note that traditional American values do not include resenting others for what they have, demanding that others live the way that some think they should have to live, demanding that people be destroyed if they use the wrong phrase or word or metaphor, blaming or accusing others for bad choices made, not holding people accountable for the consequences of choices they make, entitlement mentality, or that government exists to provide cradle to grave security and/or demand that others provide us with what we need.

There are many excellent reasons for not embracing liberalism as it is defined and is demonstrated in the USA in modern times.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> He meant "You didn't build that!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you guys figured out that Obama was referring to public infrastructure and NOT the man's business when he made that comment, or are you still having fun sittin' and spinnin'?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Okd7CsytE]sit n spin - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you figured out that his implication was that nobody can take credit for the business they built because somebody else built the infrastructure is just as offensive?   Or his suggestion that we all haven't contributed to the building of the infrastructure?  Or if there was no commerce and industry, built by the hard work, imagination, creativity, inspiration, and dedication of citizens willing to risk sometimes everything they have to do that, there would be no need for infrastructure?
> 
> That *his intent* was to diminish individual initative and accomplishment in favor of the collective?
> 
> And THAT is why liberalism, as it is defined in America today, is in such disfavor with those who still value the ideals and concepts the Founders wrote into the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Can you please provide a link to a credible source where Obama defined that as 'his intent'?  

  Why is it conservatives think that support for the community at large MUST come at the expense of support for the individual?


----------



## koshergrl

Are you implying that nothing exists until Obama mouths the words defining it?

Wow, you really are his creature.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Foxfyre said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.
> 
> They are a Conservative think tank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least conservatives HAVE think tanks.  And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials.   I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong.   So far crickets.
> 
> I won't lie about the excellent sources I use to support my opinions whether they be conservative (Heritage Foundation), libertarian (CATO), or liberal (Brookings Institute) and et al.  In order to pass my test as a credible source, the information provided has to hold up under scrutiny and has to be untainted by partisanship.
> 
> I do avoid using sources that exist for the purpose of exposing or challenging the opposing ideology whether those be left or right leaning.  The Heritage Foundation is not in that business.
> 
> Both Heritage and CATO are as equally tough on bad Republican initiatives as they are bad Democratic initiatives, and flawed concepts promoted as 'conservative' as they are on failed liberal initiatives.  And both are brutally honest in their conclusions.   I use Brookings (and other sources) for the credfible liberal argument because Brookings and some others (Raspbery, Camille Paglia, Michael Kinsley, et al)  have stood up under scrutiny as being among the most objective and honest left leaning groups or commentators out there.
> 
> I won't apologize for being a modern American conservative (aka classical liberal) with a point of view that I can defend or for using good sources only because they share my point of view.  I think it foolish to dismiss an honest source because of the label somebody puts on it.
> 
> And again my opinion has been that liberals cannot and will not defend their point of view but rather their entire argument most often is pointing fingers at others that they declare to be evil, greedy, selfish, wrong, bad, worse, partisan (meaning not liberal), or they did it too, yadda yadda.  And by dismissing any evidence to the contrary, they never have to challenge their own point of view.
> 
> It is one of the primary reasons that liberalism is in such disfavor among a plurality if not a majority of Americans.
> 
> From a 2009 Gallup poll--I'll watch for something more current:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group
Click to expand...


Progressive and Liberals have think tanks too.  I don't trust a Conservative group to give a real good representation of Liberal and Progressive thinking as was made clear in Intense's post. I doubt too many Conservatives would want Think Progress to tell folks how they think and what they stand for.

In these polls where people are asked to define themselves, many don't want to pigenhole themselves into a category and will say they are moderate. Also, many Liberals don't use the word Liberal to define themselves. And many Conservatives don't use the term Conservative to define themselves. Did they ask how many consider themselves Libertarian or Progressive? 

And your POV on how Liberals argue is the exact same thing as Conservatives do with the finger pointing , labeling, name calling, etc. They also refuse to look beyond their own opinions and see the validity of their opponents. 

I respect your opinion but you are very biased. Most of your recent posting have been to criticize Liberals rather harshly but refusing to acknowledge bad behavior by the Conservatives. That's fine if it's what you believe but I'm not going to take your opinion on Liberals as seriously because of that.

It's the same reason I won't take the Heritage Foundations words on Liberalism and Progressivism as fact either. 

They are a Conservative think tank. You don't have to apologize for using them or for believing what you believe but it is not a very fair and balanced viewpoint and therefore I'm less inclined to take it as anything more than a Conservative and biased viewpoint on Liberals and why you think their ideology is flawed.


----------



## Foxfyre

AVG-JOE said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.
> 
> They are a Conservative think tank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least conservatives HAVE think tanks.  And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials.   I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong.   So far crickets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can someone possibly show how someone else or an organization got an *opinion* wrong?
> 
> Step one is to admit that liberal opinion is JUST as valid as conservative opinion.
> Step two is to accept the election results and move on.
Click to expand...


An opinion can be subjective and relatively inconsequential such as it is my opinion that I look better wearing royal blue than I do wearing orange.  The only way to evaluate my opinion is in how many people who observe me wearing those colors agree or disagree with my opinion.

But an opinion about the virtues or lack thereof in social or economic policy can almost always be evaluated objectively by hard data and more subjectively as to the satisfaction people have in their own lives.  We KNOW roughly, for instance, how much money has been spent on the war on poverty beginning with the Great Society initiatives of the LBJ Administration.   Heritage, CATO, and Brookings - conservative, libertarian, and liberal - have all done some pretty exhaustive research on that and they all arrive at pretty close to the same numbers give or take a few billion.

And it helps us make informed opinions about it rather than just defending something because it sounds noble and not gives a rat's ass about whether it is actually accomplishing what the title suggests.

And we can look at the results today and evaluate whether there are bigger or smaller deficits, acceleration of the national debt, how many people are on food stamps now compared to then?  How many children live in poverty now compared to then?  How many people receive government subsidies now compared to then?   How many people live in traditional two-parent families now compared to then?  Because records have been kept, every economic and social indicator is measurable, and honest people can make an informed opinion on whether all that money has accomplished what it was intended to accomplish.  And whether positives, and there have been some, outweigh the negatives, and there have been some.

I very much appreciate groups like Heritage, CATO, Brookings, et al, who do the heavy lifting to pull the data together to allow us to evaluate it and form informed opinions about the policy and/or initiatives that we choose to support or choose to resist.


----------



## Pogo

Wolfsister77 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.
> 
> They are a Conservative think tank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least conservatives HAVE think tanks.  And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials.   I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong.   So far crickets.
> 
> I won't lie about the excellent sources I use to support my opinions whether they be conservative (Heritage Foundation), libertarian (CATO), or liberal (Brookings Institute) and et al.  In order to pass my test as a credible source, the information provided has to hold up under scrutiny and has to be untainted by partisanship.
> 
> I do avoid using sources that exist for the purpose of exposing or challenging the opposing ideology whether those be left or right leaning.  The Heritage Foundation is not in that business.
> 
> Both Heritage and CATO are as equally tough on bad Republican initiatives as they are bad Democratic initiatives, and flawed concepts promoted as 'conservative' as they are on failed liberal initiatives.  And both are brutally honest in their conclusions.   I use Brookings (and other sources) for the credfible liberal argument because Brookings and some others (Raspbery, Camille Paglia, Michael Kinsley, et al)  have stood up under scrutiny as being among the most objective and honest left leaning groups or commentators out there.
> 
> I won't apologize for being a modern American conservative (aka classical liberal) with a point of view that I can defend or for using good sources only because they share my point of view.  I think it foolish to dismiss an honest source because of the label somebody puts on it.
> 
> And again my opinion has been that liberals cannot and will not defend their point of view but rather their entire argument most often is pointing fingers at others that they declare to be evil, greedy, selfish, wrong, bad, worse, partisan (meaning not liberal), or they did it too, yadda yadda.  And by dismissing any evidence to the contrary, they never have to challenge their own point of view.
> 
> It is one of the primary reasons that liberalism is in such disfavor among a plurality if not a majority of Americans.
> 
> From a 2009 Gallup poll--I'll watch for something more current:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progressive and Liberals have think tanks too.  I don't trust a Conservative group to give a real good representation of Liberal and Progressive thinking as was made clear in Intense's post. I doubt too many Conservatives would want Think Progress to tell folks how they think and what they stand for.
> 
> In these polls where people are asked to define themselves, many don't want to pigenhole themselves into a category and will say they are moderate. Also, many Liberals don't use the word Liberal to define themselves. And many Conservatives don't use the term Conservative to define themselves. Did they ask how many consider themselves Libertarian or Progressive?
> 
> And your POV on how Liberals argue is the exact same thing as Conservatives do with the finger pointing , labeling, name calling, etc. They also refuse to look beyond their own opinions and see the validity of their opponents.
> 
> I respect your opinion but you are very biased. Most of your recent posting have been to criticize Liberals rather harshly but refusing to acknowledge bad behavior by the Conservatives. That's fine if it's what you believe but I'm not going to take your opinion on Liberals as seriously because of that.
> 
> It's the same reason I won't take the Heritage Foundations words on Liberalism and Progressivism as fact either.
> 
> They are a Conservative think tank. You don't have to apologize for using them or for believing what you believe but it is not a very fair and balanced viewpoint and therefore I'm less inclined to take it as anything more than a Conservative and biased viewpoint on Liberals and why you think their ideology is flawed.
Click to expand...


What Foxy's using (and it's by NO means limited to her) is an elaborate strawman.  First you redefine "Liberal" into an odd conflation of negative traits and insist that that's now the new definition, then you trot out a poll showing the results of that distortion when the public is asked about it.  Again it's an old tactic of superficial rhetoric designed to denigrate the adversary.  In effect trying to get away with "libtard" without actually saying it.

George H.W. Bush used the same tactic in his 1988 election campaign.  Rash Limbag uses it every day; demonize and polarize.  As long as you don't really think about what's going on logically, it works.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.
> 
> They are a Conservative think tank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least conservatives HAVE think tanks.  And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials.   I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong.   So far crickets.
> 
> I won't lie about the excellent sources I use to support my opinions whether they be conservative (Heritage Foundation), libertarian (CATO), or liberal (Brookings Institute) and et al.  In order to pass my test as a credible source, the information provided has to hold up under scrutiny and has to be untainted by partisanship.
> 
> I do avoid using sources that exist for the purpose of exposing or challenging the opposing ideology whether those be left or right leaning.  The Heritage Foundation is not in that business.
> 
> Both Heritage and CATO are as equally tough on bad Republican initiatives as they are bad Democratic initiatives, and flawed concepts promoted as 'conservative' as they are on failed liberal initiatives.  And both are brutally honest in their conclusions.   I use Brookings (and other sources) for the credfible liberal argument because Brookings and some others (Raspbery, Camille Paglia, Michael Kinsley, et al)  have stood up under scrutiny as being among the most objective and honest left leaning groups or commentators out there.
> 
> I won't apologize for being a modern American conservative (aka classical liberal) with a point of view that I can defend or for using good sources only because they share my point of view.  I think it foolish to dismiss an honest source because of the label somebody puts on it.
> 
> And again my opinion has been that liberals cannot and will not defend their point of view but rather their entire argument most often is pointing fingers at others that they declare to be evil, greedy, selfish, wrong, bad, worse, partisan (meaning not liberal), or they did it too, yadda yadda.  And by dismissing any evidence to the contrary, they never have to challenge their own point of view.
> 
> It is one of the primary reasons that liberalism is in such disfavor among a plurality if not a majority of Americans.
> 
> From a 2009 Gallup poll--I'll watch for something more current:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group
Click to expand...


The Heritage Foundation is funded by the biggest polluters on our planet who have caused the death and destruction of millions of human beings. And when right wing parrots like you chirp, there is always a puff of smoke.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least conservatives HAVE think tanks.  And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials.   I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong.   So far crickets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can someone possibly show how someone else or an organization got an *opinion* wrong?
> 
> Step one is to admit that liberal opinion is JUST as valid as conservative opinion.
> Step two is to accept the election results and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An opinion can be subjective and relatively inconsequential such as it is my opinion that I look better wearing royal blue than I do wearing orange.  The only way to evaluate my opinion is in how many people who observe me wearing those colors agree or disagree with my opinion.
> 
> But an opinion about the virtues or lack thereof in social or economic policy can almost always be evaluated objectively by hard data and more subjectively as to the satisfaction people have in their own lives.  We KNOW roughly, for instance, how much money has been spent on the war on poverty beginning with the Great Society initiatives of the LBJ Administration.   Heritage, CATO, and Brookings - conservative, libertarian, and liberal - have all done some pretty exhaustive research on that and they all arrive at pretty close to the same numbers give or take a few billion.
> 
> And it helps us make informed opinions about it rather than just defending something because it sounds noble and not gives a rat's ass about whether it is actually accomplishing what the title suggests.
> 
> And we can look at the results today and evaluate whether there are bigger or smaller deficits, acceleration of the national debt, how many people are on food stamps now compared to then?  How many children live in poverty now compared to then?  How many people receive government subsidies now compared to then?   How many people live in traditional two-parent families now compared to then?  Because records have been kept, every economic and social indicator is measurable, and honest people can make an informed opinion on whether all that money has accomplished what it was intended to accomplish.  And whether positives, and there have been some, outweigh the negatives, and there have been some.
> 
> I very much appreciate groups like Heritage, CATO, Brookings, et al, who do the heavy lifting to pull the data together to allow us to evaluate it and form informed opinions about the policy and/or initiatives that we choose to support or choose to resist.
Click to expand...


Hey Einstein, 'now and then' doesn't take into account what external factors happened BETWEEN 'now and then' (like Republicans defunding programs THEN calling them a failure, corporations selling out America for slave labor, right wing union busting and failed Republican policies), and it doesn't take into account how much WORSE it would be without those programs.


----------



## Foxfyre

And again that is one of the reasons liberalism as it is defined in America in modern times is held in such low regard by so many.  The liberal simply cannot defend their point of view with anything other than negative opinion and accusations of those who hold liberalism in low regard.  Ad hominem argument is a no-no in formal debate for a reason.  It focuses attention on and accuses the one holding the opinion rather than focusing on the concept itself.   As long as the tactic is allowed with impunity, no comprehensive discussion of any objective topic can ever take place.  Which of course is why the tactic is used by most.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> And again that is one of the reasons liberalism as it is defined in America in modern times is held in such low regard by so many.  *The liberal simply cannot defend their point of view with anything other than negative opinion and accusations* of those who hold liberalism in low regard.  Ad hominem argument is a no-no in formal debate for a reason.  It focuses attention on and accuses the one holding the opinion rather than focusing on the concept itself.   As long as the tactic is allowed with impunity, no comprehensive discussion of any objective topic can ever take place.  Which of course is why the tactic is used by most.



Foxy sees her own strawman and raises herself a hasty generalization.


----------



## Intense

Dot Com said:


> Heritage Foundation=  Obamneycare



Big words for you, D.C., keep trying, baby strps. You'll get there.


----------



## PixieStix

I don't "hate" liberals. But I do think they are to blame for the color going out of our world. 

They want everyone to be their version of equal.

What they lack to realize is that they are forcing the world to become bland and tasteless


----------



## Intense

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.
> 
> They are a Conservative think tank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least conservatives HAVE think tanks.  And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials.   I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong.   So far crickets.
> 
> I won't lie about the excellent sources I use to support my opinions whether they be conservative (Heritage Foundation), libertarian (CATO), or liberal (Brookings Institute) and et al.  In order to pass my test as a credible source, the information provided has to hold up under scrutiny and has to be untainted by partisanship.
> 
> I do avoid using sources that exist for the purpose of exposing or challenging the opposing ideology whether those be left or right leaning.  The Heritage Foundation is not in that business.
> 
> Both Heritage and CATO are as equally tough on bad Republican initiatives as they are bad Democratic initiatives, and flawed concepts promoted as 'conservative' as they are on failed liberal initiatives.  And both are brutally honest in their conclusions.   I use Brookings (and other sources) for the credfible liberal argument because Brookings and some others (Raspbery, Camille Paglia, Michael Kinsley, et al)  have stood up under scrutiny as being among the most objective and honest left leaning groups or commentators out there.
> 
> I won't apologize for being a modern American conservative (aka classical liberal) with a point of view that I can defend or for using good sources only because they share my point of view.  I think it foolish to dismiss an honest source because of the label somebody puts on it.
> 
> And again my opinion has been that liberals cannot and will not defend their point of view but rather their entire argument most often is pointing fingers at others that they declare to be evil, greedy, selfish, wrong, bad, worse, partisan (meaning not liberal), or they did it too, yadda yadda.  And by dismissing any evidence to the contrary, they never have to challenge their own point of view.
> 
> It is one of the primary reasons that liberalism is in such disfavor among a plurality if not a majority of Americans.
> 
> From a 2009 Gallup poll--I'll watch for something more current:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Heritage Foundation is funded by the biggest polluters on our planet who have caused the death and destruction of millions of human beings. And when right wing parrots like you chirp, there is always a puff of smoke.
Click to expand...


I'll take one large Kool-Aid, and 3 small Kool-Aids to go, ..... no wait, make that 2-16 oz Kool-Aids, my left leaning friends can't be seen in public with anything larger than 16 oz. Ever get tired of slandering and obstructing the truth, and attacking the messengers, let us know.  What would you do if that same standard was applied to you and your sources? Melt? Why is it that you see yourself so without fault or flaw, while your opposition cann get nothing right? It is amazing to watch.


----------



## Intense

PixieStix said:


> I don't "hate" liberals. But I do think they are to blame for the color going out of our world.
> 
> They want everyone to be their version of equal.
> 
> What they lack to realize is that they are forcing the world to become bland and tasteless



They want 2 things. Control over us, and credit when something actually works out, and to blame us for everyone of their failed policies, .... okay, you got me, 3 things.


----------



## freedombecki

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again that is one of the reasons liberalism as it is defined in America in modern times is held in such low regard by so many. *The liberal simply cannot defend their point of view with anything other than negative opinion and accusations* of those who hold liberalism in low regard. Ad hominem argument is a no-no in formal debate for a reason. It focuses attention on and accuses the one holding the opinion rather than focusing on the concept itself. As long as the tactic is allowed with impunity, no comprehensive discussion of any objective topic can ever take place. Which of course is why the tactic is used by most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxy sees her own strawman and raises herself a hasty generalization.
Click to expand...

Well, Pogo, I just endured a 4-corner attack from liberals for stating my opinion, and one of them even mooned me.

The other was loaded for bear.


----------



## numan

Wolfsister77 said:


> Progressive and Liberals have think tanks too.  I don't trust a Conservative group to give a real good representation of Liberal and Progressive thinking as was made clear in Intense's post. I doubt too many Conservatives would want Think Progress to tell folks how they think and what they stand for.
> 
> In these polls where people are asked to define themselves, many don't want to pigenhole themselves into a category and will say they are moderate. Also, many Liberals don't use the word Liberal to define themselves. And many Conservatives don't use the term Conservative to define themselves. Did they ask how many consider themselves Libertarian or Progressive?


Liberals, as denounced by the haters on this thread, simply don't exist -- not in any significant numbers, anyway.

They are phantoms of the propaganda machine of mass media brainwashing and social conditioning -- just as home-grown "communists" were in the 1950's.

Probably most of the members of the American Communist Party were FBI infiltrators !!

Just as the case of "communists" in the 50's, modern day "liberals" are created by the Brainwashing Machine as a distraction from Real Problems.

People who are incapable of thinking believe in these ghosts that go "bump" in the night.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

numan said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive and Liberals have think tanks too.  I don't trust a Conservative group to give a real good representation of Liberal and Progressive thinking as was made clear in Intense's post. I doubt too many Conservatives would want Think Progress to tell folks how they think and what they stand for.
> 
> In these polls where people are asked to define themselves, many don't want to pigenhole themselves into a category and will say they are moderate. Also, many Liberals don't use the word Liberal to define themselves. And many Conservatives don't use the term Conservative to define themselves. Did they ask how many consider themselves Libertarian or Progressive?
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals, as denounced by the haters on this thread, simply don't exist -- not in any significant numbers, anyway.
> 
> They are phantoms of the propaganda machine of mass media brainwashing and social conditioning -- just as home-grown "communists" were in the 1950's.
> 
> Probably most of the members of the American Communist Party were FBI infiltrators !!
> 
> Just as the case of "communists" in the 50's, modern day "liberals" are created by the Brainwashing Machine as a distraction from Real Problems.
> 
> People who are incapable of thinking believe in these ghosts that go "bump" in the night.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


If they don't exist, then how did so much 'color go out of our world' as Pixie accurately described it?   Who is responsible for that?   Why is there a rodeo cloud banned for life for doing something utterly tasteless and offensive when rodeo clowns and others have been doing that kind of thing for a generation without losing their jobs?

Why was Paula Deen ruined professionally for simply admitting that she used a word long ago that one demographic in our society now uses routinely to describe themselves?

Why was there an organized effort to ruin Chick fil purely because the CEO spoke publicly in favor of traditional marriage?

Why are people in NYC restricted in the size of soft drink they are allowed to buy?

Why is it okay to have to show postive ID to buy a gun, fly on an airplane, or cash a check but not okay to have to show positive ID to vote?

Why does a wind energy firm or solar panel manufacturer or ethanol plant get almost instant environmental clearance from the EPA,  while anything less politically correct waits interminable months or years for the same clearance?

If you say there are no liberals, as liberals are described in modern day America, who is pushing the liberal agenda?


----------



## numan

Foxfyre said:


> If they don't exist, then how did so much 'color go out of our world' as Pixie accurately described it?   Who is responsible for that?   Why is there a rodeo cloud banned for life for doing something utterly tasteless and offensive when rodeo clowns and others have been doing that kind of thing for a generation without losing their jobs?


You should be blaming the people who own the Media, the Military-Industrial Conspiracy and the Federal Reserve.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

numan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they don't exist, then how did so much 'color go out of our world' as Pixie accurately described it?   Who is responsible for that?   Why is there a rodeo cloud banned for life for doing something utterly tasteless and offensive when rodeo clowns and others have been doing that kind of thing for a generation without losing their jobs?
> 
> 
> 
> You should be blaming the people who own the Media, the Military-Industrial Conspiracy and the Federal Reserve.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I blame the liberals in the media, the liberals in the military-industrial complex, and the liberals in the Federal Reseve.   You give conservatives/classical liberals as they are defined in our modern ttimes, power to influence those things and a few other things, most especially a self-serving government, and the color would begin to return to our world.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

AVG-JOE said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what President Kennedy meant when he said "ask not..." or are you going to twist his words to serve YOUR agenda, and not his?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He meant "You didn't build that!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you guys figured out that Obama was referring to public infrastructure and NOT the man's business when he made that comment, or are you still having fun sittin' and spinnin'?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Okd7CsytE]sit n spin - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


I didn't think you were that simpleminded, but ya drank the KoolAid!


----------



## Foxfyre

AVG-JOE said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you guys figured out that Obama was referring to public infrastructure and NOT the man's business when he made that comment, or are you still having fun sittin' and spinnin'?
> 
> sit n spin - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you figured out that his implication was that nobody can take credit for the business they built because somebody else built the infrastructure is just as offensive?   Or his suggestion that we all haven't contributed to the building of the infrastructure?  Or if there was no commerce and industry, built by the hard work, imagination, creativity, inspiration, and dedication of citizens willing to risk sometimes everything they have to do that, there would be no need for infrastructure?
> 
> That *his intent* was to diminish individual initative and accomplishment in favor of the collective?
> 
> And THAT is why liberalism, as it is defined in America today, is in such disfavor with those who still value the ideals and concepts the Founders wrote into the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you please provide a link to a credible source where Obama defined that as 'his intent'?
> 
> Why is it conservatives think that support for the community at large MUST come at the expense of support for the individual?
Click to expand...


Can you provide a link to a credible source in which he has EVER suggested that it was anything else?  Has he EVER given private enterprise credit for anything that would have happened without government making it happen?  His attitude, along with that of most modern day American liberals, is that government mostly preceded all human initiative and prosperity and that government gets credit for most of it and prosperity can't happen unless government makes it happen.

Conservatives think that support from the community must come via social contract--i.e. what the people who will pay for it decide--for the general welfare and not for the support of a privileged few whether those few be rich or poor.  Whenever the federal government is given power to confiscate property of one citizen for the benefit of another, it has power to do anything it wants to anybody and there is no freedom.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive and Liberals have think tanks too.  I don't trust a Conservative group to give a real good representation of Liberal and Progressive thinking as was made clear in Intense's post. I doubt too many Conservatives would want Think Progress to tell folks how they think and what they stand for.
> 
> In these polls where people are asked to define themselves, many don't want to pigenhole themselves into a category and will say they are moderate. Also, many Liberals don't use the word Liberal to define themselves. And many Conservatives don't use the term Conservative to define themselves. Did they ask how many consider themselves Libertarian or Progressive?
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals, as denounced by the haters on this thread, simply don't exist -- not in any significant numbers, anyway.
> 
> They are phantoms of the propaganda machine of mass media brainwashing and social conditioning -- just as home-grown "communists" were in the 1950's.
> 
> Probably most of the members of the American Communist Party were FBI infiltrators !!
> 
> Just as the case of "communists" in the 50's, modern day "liberals" are created by the Brainwashing Machine as a distraction from Real Problems.
> 
> People who are incapable of thinking believe in these ghosts that go "bump" in the night.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they don't exist, then how did so much 'color go out of our world' as Pixie accurately described it?   Who is responsible for that?   Why is there a rodeo cloud banned for life for doing something utterly tasteless and offensive when rodeo clowns and others have been doing that kind of thing for a generation without losing their jobs?
> 
> Why was Paula Deen ruined professionally for simply admitting that she used a word long ago that one demographic in our society now uses routinely to describe themselves?
> 
> Why was there an organized effort to ruin Chick fil purely because the CEO spoke publicly in favor of traditional marriage?
> 
> Why are people in NYC restricted in the size of soft drink they are allowed to buy?
> 
> Why is it okay to have to show postive ID to buy a gun, fly on an airplane, or cash a check but not okay to have to show positive ID to vote?
> 
> Why does a wind energy firm or solar panel manufacturer or ethanol plant get almost instant environmental clearance from the EPA,  while anything less politically correct waits interminable months or years for the same clearance?
> 
> If you say there are no liberals, as liberals are described in modern day America, who is pushing the liberal agenda?
Click to expand...



What Pixie described (and Intense too) has nothing to do with Liberalism, which doesn't seek to "control" anything.  What you have listed above here doesn't either-- it's a mishmash of mostly social mores and a couple of leftist ideas on the side, but none of it is Liberalism.

The "liberal agenda" as far as I can see is an illusory Emmanuel Goldstein device.  I'm not part of it so I can't speak _for_ it but I see it as a strawman set up to, again, cloud the whole issue and lump basically liberals and leftists together as if they're the same thing, for the purpose of demonizing and then eliminating them so that the side creating that illusion can walk away with a political monopoly.

Somebody -- not you Foxy, but some demagogue in the past (and I'm looking at you Joe McCarthy), created this illusory device as a political wedge for their own political self-interest, and it's been a rhetorical sinkhole ever since.  It's still used today as a crutch by internet wags, media talking heads, politicians and other demagogues to pave over and hopelessly oversimplify their chosen enemy into "liberals", "the left", "Democrats" and "all that is evil", as if they're all the same thing.  And when you buy into that bullshit device, whether knowingly or not, you close all discourse, the wedge goes up, and nobody sees a thing on the other side of the wedge.  You have two sides, permanently at war.  We erroneously call them "liberal" and "conservative" rather than "Oceania" and "Eastasia".

Unfortunately for that facile device, it's not what "Liberalism" means, and we dig ourselves into a hole misusing the terms.  True Liberalism, which is what founded this country, comes under attack from both the left and the right.  Liberalism is not leftism.

Consider a truly wholly _Liberal _concept from the Preamble to our Constitution:

*"...All men are created equal".*​
That's as Liberal a concept as there is.  It overturned and stood against (and still stands against) the stratified society that preceded it, a caste system of aristocrats, clergy and commoners.  If you were born a commoner, that's where you stayed and you weren't moving up.  If you were born into the aristocracy, you were already there. 

"All men are created equal" destroys that system and declares that any child can grow up to be President or start his/her own business, regardless of birth.  It's the philosophy that directly opposes discrimination based on race or gender or religion.  It's a revolutionary thought in its time, because it overturned those lines of social demarcation that were, before this, very real.

By this definition of the Liberals who founded us, we're all Liberals, you and me included.  Unless we believe in that caste system, or believe in racism, we're all "Liberals".

But Liberalism also means the government stays out of the way and lets people do their thing as much as possible.  That's why our Constitution uses language like "Congress shall make no law restricting..." and spells out rights that "shall not be infringed"--- setting out limitations on government rather than limitations on the People.  The People will have free exercise of the rights spelled out, and the Constitution ensures that new laws cannot restrict those. At least it's supposed to.

So "all men are created equal" is a Liberal concept... then we get something like Affirmative Action.  AA is_ not_ a Liberal concept; it's a _leftist _concept.  To the extent that it uses government to create a Liberal goal, it's actually an anti-liberal concept.  It's taking a Liberal *end *and using government as the *means *to make it happen.  Laws from the right against sodomy or gay marriage or use of inebriants are not Liberal either.  Again, an attempt to control and shape society through legislation.  Again, anti-liberal.

Thus both left and right are at odds with the Liberal approach, which is to let the citizenry take care of itself -- within the boundaries of what government needs to restrict, such as public safety, fraud and such.

If we continue to pretend these concepts are something other than what they are, just to accommodate Joe McCarthy, we go where Joe McCarthy took us: nowhere.  Gadflies like the radio/TV talking heads and pandering politicians will take us down this dank rhetorical road to nowhere just for cheap votes and audience ratings.  But what we end up with has to do with solutions; instead we get an artificial wall with two sides shouting at each other and the wall just reinforces itself, because conflict makes it stronger.  What's really needed is a balance of left and right.

The first step is listening.  Declaring "you _____s are all about X, Y and Z" isn't listening.  Nor is hanging labels.  All that does is dehumanize and strengthen the wall, and the morass perpetuates itself.

OK I'm done, got things to do.


----------



## thanatos144

the true face of democrat liberals 

























Racism .... It is what created the democrat liberal party it is what sustains it.


----------



## Bfgrn

Intense said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least conservatives HAVE think tanks.  And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials.   I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong.   So far crickets.
> 
> I won't lie about the excellent sources I use to support my opinions whether they be conservative (Heritage Foundation), libertarian (CATO), or liberal (Brookings Institute) and et al.  In order to pass my test as a credible source, the information provided has to hold up under scrutiny and has to be untainted by partisanship.
> 
> I do avoid using sources that exist for the purpose of exposing or challenging the opposing ideology whether those be left or right leaning.  The Heritage Foundation is not in that business.
> 
> Both Heritage and CATO are as equally tough on bad Republican initiatives as they are bad Democratic initiatives, and flawed concepts promoted as 'conservative' as they are on failed liberal initiatives.  And both are brutally honest in their conclusions.   I use Brookings (and other sources) for the credfible liberal argument because Brookings and some others (Raspbery, Camille Paglia, Michael Kinsley, et al)  have stood up under scrutiny as being among the most objective and honest left leaning groups or commentators out there.
> 
> I won't apologize for being a modern American conservative (aka classical liberal) with a point of view that I can defend or for using good sources only because they share my point of view.  I think it foolish to dismiss an honest source because of the label somebody puts on it.
> 
> And again my opinion has been that liberals cannot and will not defend their point of view but rather their entire argument most often is pointing fingers at others that they declare to be evil, greedy, selfish, wrong, bad, worse, partisan (meaning not liberal), or they did it too, yadda yadda.  And by dismissing any evidence to the contrary, they never have to challenge their own point of view.
> 
> It is one of the primary reasons that liberalism is in such disfavor among a plurality if not a majority of Americans.
> 
> From a 2009 Gallup poll--I'll watch for something more current:
> 
> 
> "Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Heritage Foundation is funded by the biggest polluters on our planet who have caused the death and destruction of millions of human beings. And when right wing parrots like you chirp, there is always a puff of smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take one large Kool-Aid, and 3 small Kool-Aids to go, ..... no wait, make that 2-16 oz Kool-Aids, my left leaning friends can't be seen in public with anything larger than 16 oz. Ever get tired of slandering and obstructing the truth, and attacking the messengers, let us know.  What would you do if that same standard was applied to you and your sources? Melt? Why is it that you see yourself so without fault or flaw, while your opposition cann get nothing right? It is amazing to watch.
Click to expand...


&#8220;Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer


That's because I have witnessed the dire changes in this nation sonny boy. I KNOW exactly what Charles Krauthammer is talking about. I KNOW who is at fault, and I know why. You are among the totally clueless right wing parrots who believe the monied interests behind the Heritage Foundation are just a bunch of benign people who never use their power for their benefit, and to the detriment of We, the People. We have become an oligarchy and I totally understand why millionaires would support the Heritage Foundation. What I will never understand is why parrots like you support it.

It can only be because you are just a subservient sucker.

Our founding fathers were not libertarians, they were liberals who would have shut down corporate propaganda tools like Heritage.

The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809)


----------



## Pogo

thanatos144 said:


> the true face of democrat liberals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racism .... It is what created the democrat liberal party it is what sustains it.



Sure didn't take long for some wag to demonstrate exactly what I was talking about.
... seventeen minutes, the very next post.  

Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Intense said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "hate" liberals. But I do think they are to blame for the color going out of our world.
> 
> They want everyone to be their version of equal.
> 
> What they lack to realize is that they are forcing the world to become bland and tasteless
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They want 2 things. Control over us, and credit when something actually works out, and to blame us for everyone of their failed policies, .... okay, you got me, 3 things.
Click to expand...


With all due respect, how the fuck do you know what I want?


----------



## Pogo

AVG-JOE said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "hate" liberals. But I do think they are to blame for the color going out of our world.
> 
> They want everyone to be their version of equal.
> 
> What they lack to realize is that they are forcing the world to become bland and tasteless
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They want 2 things. Control over us, and credit when something actually works out, and to blame us for everyone of their failed policies, .... okay, you got me, 3 things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect, how the fuck do you know what I want?
Click to expand...


That ^^ is exactly why I keep citing Strawman.


----------



## AVG-JOE

CrusaderFrank said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> He meant "You didn't build that!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you guys figured out that Obama was referring to public infrastructure and NOT the man's business when he made that comment, or are you still having fun sittin' and spinnin'?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Okd7CsytE]sit n spin - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't think you were that simpleminded, but ya drank the KoolAid!
Click to expand...


You brought it up, Frank.  You brought it up.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> They want 2 things. Control over us, and credit when something actually works out, and to blame us for everyone of their failed policies, .... okay, you got me, 3 things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, how the fuck do you know what I want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That ^^ is exactly why I keep citing Strawman.
Click to expand...


Except you tend to accuse others of building them and cannot seem to recognize your own.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Intense said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least conservatives HAVE think tanks.  And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials.   I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong.   So far crickets.
> 
> I won't lie about the excellent sources I use to support my opinions whether they be conservative (Heritage Foundation), libertarian (CATO), or liberal (Brookings Institute) and et al.  In order to pass my test as a credible source, the information provided has to hold up under scrutiny and has to be untainted by partisanship.
> 
> I do avoid using sources that exist for the purpose of exposing or challenging the opposing ideology whether those be left or right leaning.  The Heritage Foundation is not in that business.
> 
> Both Heritage and CATO are as equally tough on bad Republican initiatives as they are bad Democratic initiatives, and flawed concepts promoted as 'conservative' as they are on failed liberal initiatives.  And both are brutally honest in their conclusions.   I use Brookings (and other sources) for the credfible liberal argument because Brookings and some others (Raspbery, Camille Paglia, Michael Kinsley, et al)  have stood up under scrutiny as being among the most objective and honest left leaning groups or commentators out there.
> 
> I won't apologize for being a modern American conservative (aka classical liberal) with a point of view that I can defend or for using good sources only because they share my point of view.  I think it foolish to dismiss an honest source because of the label somebody puts on it.
> 
> And again my opinion has been that liberals cannot and will not defend their point of view but rather their entire argument most often is pointing fingers at others that they declare to be evil, greedy, selfish, wrong, bad, worse, partisan (meaning not liberal), or they did it too, yadda yadda.  And by dismissing any evidence to the contrary, they never have to challenge their own point of view.
> 
> It is one of the primary reasons that liberalism is in such disfavor among a plurality if not a majority of Americans.
> 
> From a 2009 Gallup poll--I'll watch for something more current:
> 
> 
> "Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Heritage Foundation is funded by the biggest polluters on our planet who have caused the death and destruction of millions of human beings. And when right wing parrots like you chirp, there is always a puff of smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take one large Kool-Aid, and 3 small Kool-Aids to go, ..... no wait, make that 2-16 oz Kool-Aids, my left leaning friends can't be seen in public with anything larger than 16 oz. Ever get tired of slandering and obstructing the truth, and attacking the messengers, let us know.  What would you do if that same standard was applied to you and your sources? Melt? Why is it that you see yourself so without fault or flaw, while your opposition cann get nothing right? It is amazing to watch.
Click to expand...


The kool-aid thing is pretty childish...  

I'm guessing from your comment that you know that you know that you know that Heritage is NOT supported by individuals and corporations with records of pollution, so, inquiring minds want to know... who DOES fund Heritage?


----------



## Beachboy

Having been a Republican and a Democrat, I found my home as an independent.  There are whack jobs on both sides of the aisle.  The thing that has always amazed me, (and it always comes for someone who thinks they know more than you), is "If you are a conservative/liberal your stand on global warming is: xxxxx  Your stand on Social Security is: xxxxxx  Your stand on Afghanistan is: xxxxx

I keep coming back to the remark of Jeff Foxworthy.  "America was founded by geniuses, and is run by idiots."  When I am not crying about the condition my our country, I am laughing at it.  Well, I am tired of crying.  

If the citizens of the United States want just sit and bitch about things instead of getting off their asses and working for a candidate or idea, we deserve to go down the crapper.  I am preparing for that possibility.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Foxworthy​


----------



## Foxfyre

AVG-JOE said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "hate" liberals. But I do think they are to blame for the color going out of our world.
> 
> They want everyone to be their version of equal.
> 
> What they lack to realize is that they are forcing the world to become bland and tasteless
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They want 2 things. Control over us, and credit when something actually works out, and to blame us for everyone of their failed policies, .... okay, you got me, 3 things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect, how the fuck do you know what I want?
Click to expand...


So you are saying that he is talking about you?   You are a self-described liberal?   The opinion is based on what we read in the papers, what we see on television, what we hear on the radio, and what we observe on message boards like USMB.  We see post after post reinforcing the summary Intense provided, and others glad handing those posts with thanks.  When you say 'hate' summarizes our point of view, what are we to conclude other than that is your opinion of us?   And yet you provide no examples to back that up.

At least the conservatives have been providing example after example after example of why we hold the opinions that we do.  And most of what we get in response is the usual 'prove it' or 'they/you do it too' or 'whose is blackest?'  No attempt to rebut the concepts themselves.  Just a LOT of vitriole and mild to severe ad hominem tossed at anybody expressing the conservative observation or point of view.

Disclaimer:  I am NOT excusing conservatives who do that too.  But many here have been offering some pretty solid stuff that you guys really could rebut with substance.  The fact that you don't, however, rreinforces the opinion that you can't.  (Using the rhetorical 'you' here and not necessary directing this only at Avg-Joe)


----------



## AVG-JOE

PixieStix said:


> I don't "hate" liberals. But I do think they are to blame for the color going out of our world.
> 
> *They want everyone to be their version of equal.*
> 
> What they lack to realize is that they are forcing the world to become bland and tasteless



How do you know what 'liberals' want?  

Did ANY conservatives think of Romney or McCain as the 'Messiah'?  Did you vote for them anyway?  Is it possible that SOME of us were of the simple opinion that Obama was simply the lesser of the two evils present?

Why does it have to be "Conservative or Kool-aid" with no shades of grey?

I just don't understand my opinions being written off so quickly and thoroughly.


----------



## Wolfsister77

I never see a Liberal calling Obama the messiah. That only comes from Conservatives as a way to denigrate Liberals.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> They want 2 things. Control over us, and credit when something actually works out, and to blame us for everyone of their failed policies, .... okay, you got me, 3 things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, how the fuck do you know what I want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying that he is talking about you?   You are a self-described liberal?   The opinion is based on what we read in the papers, what we see on television, what we hear on the radio, and what we observe on message boards like USMB.  We see post after post reinforcing the summary Intense provided, and others glad handing those posts with thanks.  When you say 'hate' summarizes our point of view, what are we to conclude other than that is your opinion of us?   And yet you provide no examples to back that up.
> 
> At least the conservatives have been providing example after example after example of why we hold the opinions that we do.  And most of what we get in response is the usual 'prove it' or 'they/you do it too' or 'whose is blackest?'  No attempt to rebut the concepts themselves.  Just a LOT of vitriole and mild to severe ad hominem tossed at anybody expressing the conservative observation or point of view.
> 
> Disclaimer:  I am NOT excusing conservatives who do that too.  But many here have been offering some pretty solid stuff that you guys really could rebut with substance.  The fact that you don't, however, rreinforces the opinion that you can't.
Click to expand...


It's all opinion!

Conservative opinion is that marriage and all the government benefits and tax advantages that go along with it should be restricted and limited.  I believe that Americans should be free to marry whoever they want - apparently that labels me as a liberal.

On most political subjects, there is no right opinion or wrong opinion, only differences of those opinions.

The best government size and scope?  A matter of opinion.

Freedom in marriage?  A matter of opinion.

Defining God (or lack there of)?  A matter of opinion.

The things that separate conservatives from liberals in politics is ALL a matter of opinion.


----------



## AVG-JOE

And yes... I'm proud to describe myself as a 'Liberal'.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you figured out that his implication was that nobody can take credit for the business they built because somebody else built the infrastructure is just as offensive?   Or his suggestion that we all haven't contributed to the building of the infrastructure?  Or if there was no commerce and industry, built by the hard work, imagination, creativity, inspiration, and dedication of citizens willing to risk sometimes everything they have to do that, there would be no need for infrastructure?
> 
> That *his intent* was to diminish individual initative and accomplishment in favor of the collective?
> 
> And THAT is why liberalism, as it is defined in America today, is in such disfavor with those who still value the ideals and concepts the Founders wrote into the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please provide a link to a credible source where Obama defined that as 'his intent'?
> 
> Why is it conservatives think that support for the community at large MUST come at the expense of support for the individual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you provide a link to a credible source in which he has EVER suggested that it was anything else?  Has he EVER given private enterprise credit for anything that would have happened without government making it happen?  His attitude, along with that of most modern day American liberals, is that government mostly preceded all human initiative and prosperity and that government gets credit for most of it and prosperity can't happen unless government makes it happen.
> 
> Conservatives think that support from the community must come via social contract--i.e. what the people who will pay for it decide--for the general welfare and not for the support of a privileged few whether those few be rich or poor.  Whenever the federal government is given power to confiscate property of one citizen for the benefit of another, it has power to do anything it wants to anybody and there is no freedom.
Click to expand...


Is the Associated Press credible enough?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bw9mHf_O98]Obama's 'You Didn't Build That' Echoes - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre

AVG-JOE said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, how the fuck do you know what I want?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that he is talking about you?   You are a self-described liberal?   The opinion is based on what we read in the papers, what we see on television, what we hear on the radio, and what we observe on message boards like USMB.  We see post after post reinforcing the summary Intense provided, and others glad handing those posts with thanks.  When you say 'hate' summarizes our point of view, what are we to conclude other than that is your opinion of us?   And yet you provide no examples to back that up.
> 
> At least the conservatives have been providing example after example after example of why we hold the opinions that we do.  And most of what we get in response is the usual 'prove it' or 'they/you do it too' or 'whose is blackest?'  No attempt to rebut the concepts themselves.  Just a LOT of vitriole and mild to severe ad hominem tossed at anybody expressing the conservative observation or point of view.
> 
> Disclaimer:  I am NOT excusing conservatives who do that too.  But many here have been offering some pretty solid stuff that you guys really could rebut with substance.  The fact that you don't, however, rreinforces the opinion that you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all opinion!
> 
> Conservative opinion is that marriage and all the government benefits and tax advantages that go along with it should be restricted and limited.  I believe that Americans should be free to marry whoever they want - apparently that labels me as a liberal.
> 
> On most political subjects, there is no right opinion or wrong opinion, only differences of those opinions.
> 
> The best government size and scope?  A matter of opinion.
> 
> Freedom in marriage?  A matter of opinion.
> 
> Defining God (or lack there of)?  A matter of opinion.
> 
> The things that separate conservatives from liberals in politics is ALL a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...


And there are valid arguments for all those 'opinions'.  The right to worship as one chooses or not worship anything is not opinion.  It is a policy, an unalienable right recognized by the U.S. Constitution.  A hard core fact.

The Constitution never intended the federal government to be involved in marriage laws that were to be the prerogative of the state.  The Constitution never intended for special federal tax benefits or penalities to be imposed on anybody, married or not, regardless of how marriage was defined, or for any other reason.   That is not opinion.  Those are hard core facts.

The benefits of the traditional marriage can be analyzed using hard data of affluence, child poverty, crime rates, porperty values, neighborhood stability.  Not opinion.  Hard core fact that has nothing to do with same sex marriage and can be evaluated on its own merit.

The best government in size and scope can be measured against the amount of freedoms we enjoy and the quantity and extent of choices and options limited to us via actions of government.  We are informed by concrete documents of history what the Founders intended government to be and what it has become is visible, tangible, and obvious for anybody willing to see.  Not opinion.  Hard core fact.

But even when it comes to opinion--those who prefer a Mayberry USA to a Deadwood in its hellfire days, for instance--even there the obvious intent of the Founders was that the people themselves would choose what they wanted.  It would not be dictated to them by the federal government.  And that too is not opinion, but hard core fact.


----------



## MeBelle

> I never see a Liberal calling Obama the messiah.



​
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), son of the one-time presidential contender, said Obamas victory overwhelmed him.
I cried all night. Im going to be crying for the next four years, he said. What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nations political history. ... *The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.*
Black lawmakers emotional about Obama's success - POLITICO.com Print View

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlyYTYMHWYw]THE AGE OF OBAMA: Jamie Foxx - "Obama is Our God, Our Lord and Savior"! - YouTube[/ame]

This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament. . . .I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I dont have that too often. No, seriously. Its a dramatic event.  Chris Matthews

   ​


----------



## Pogo

MeBelle60 said:


> I never see a Liberal calling Obama the messiah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), son of the one-time presidential contender, said Obama&#8217;s victory overwhelmed him.
> &#8220;I cried all night. I&#8217;m going to be crying for the next four years,&#8221; he said. &#8220;What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation&#8217;s political history. ... *The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.&#8221;*
> Black lawmakers emotional about Obama's success - POLITICO.com Print View
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlyYTYMHWYw]THE AGE OF OBAMA: Jamie Foxx - "Obama is Our God, Our Lord and Savior"! - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> &#8220;This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament.&#8221; . . .&#8221;I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don&#8217;t have that too often. No, seriously. It&#8217;s a dramatic event.&#8221; &#8212; Chris Matthews
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


Did you notice that your citation there (actually both of them) refer to an _event _rather than a person?

And in between -- Jamie Foxx is a comedian satirizing the very strawman we're talking about.

Nice try though.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that he is talking about you?   You are a self-described liberal?   The opinion is based on what we read in the papers, what we see on television, what we hear on the radio, and what we observe on message boards like USMB.  We see post after post reinforcing the summary Intense provided, and others glad handing those posts with thanks.  When you say 'hate' summarizes our point of view, what are we to conclude other than that is your opinion of us?   And yet you provide no examples to back that up.
> 
> At least the conservatives have been providing example after example after example of why we hold the opinions that we do.  And most of what we get in response is the usual 'prove it' or 'they/you do it too' or 'whose is blackest?'  No attempt to rebut the concepts themselves.  Just a LOT of vitriole and mild to severe ad hominem tossed at anybody expressing the conservative observation or point of view.
> 
> Disclaimer:  I am NOT excusing conservatives who do that too.  But many here have been offering some pretty solid stuff that you guys really could rebut with substance.  The fact that you don't, however, rreinforces the opinion that you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all opinion!
> 
> Conservative opinion is that marriage and all the government benefits and tax advantages that go along with it should be restricted and limited.  I believe that Americans should be free to marry whoever they want - apparently that labels me as a liberal.
> 
> On most political subjects, there is no right opinion or wrong opinion, only differences of those opinions.
> 
> The best government size and scope?  A matter of opinion.
> 
> Freedom in marriage?  A matter of opinion.
> 
> Defining God (or lack there of)?  A matter of opinion.
> 
> The things that separate conservatives from liberals in politics is ALL a matter of opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there are valid arguments for all those 'opinions'.  The right to worship as one chooses or not worship anything is not opinion.  It is a policy, an unalienable right recognized by the U.S. Constitution.  A hard core fact.
> 
> The Constitution never intended the federal government to be involved in marriage laws that were to be the prerogative of the state.  The Constitution never intended for special federal tax benefits or penalities to be imposed on anybody, married or not, regardless of how marriage was defined, or for any other reason.   That is not opinion.  Those are hard core facts.
> 
> The benefits of the traditional marriage can be analyzed using hard data of affluence, child poverty, crime rates, porperty values, neighborhood stability.  Not opinion.  Hard core fact that has nothing to do with same sex marriage and can be evaluated on its own merit.
> 
> The best government in size and scope can be measured against the amount of freedoms we enjoy and the quantity and extent of choices and options limited to us via actions of government.  We are informed by concrete documents of history what the Founders intended government to be and what it has become is visible, tangible, and obvious for anybody willing to see.  Not opinion.  Hard core fact.
> 
> But even when it comes to opinion--those who prefer a Mayberry USA to a Deadwood in its hellfire days, for instance--even there the obvious intent of the Founders was that the people themselves would choose what they wanted.  It would not be dictated to them by the federal government.  And that too is not opinion, but hard core fact.
Click to expand...


All true.  And I appreciate hearing your opinion on those subjects even when we disagree about the resulting policies.

It's opinions that change policy, not the other way around.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that he is talking about you?   You are a self-described liberal?   The opinion is based on what we read in the papers, what we see on television, what we hear on the radio, and what we observe on message boards like USMB.  We see post after post reinforcing the summary Intense provided, and others glad handing those posts with thanks.  When you say 'hate' summarizes our point of view, what are we to conclude other than that is your opinion of us?   And yet you provide no examples to back that up.
> 
> At least the conservatives have been providing example after example after example of why we hold the opinions that we do.  And most of what we get in response is the usual 'prove it' or 'they/you do it too' or 'whose is blackest?'  No attempt to rebut the concepts themselves.  Just a LOT of vitriole and mild to severe ad hominem tossed at anybody expressing the conservative observation or point of view.
> 
> Disclaimer:  I am NOT excusing conservatives who do that too.  But many here have been offering some pretty solid stuff that you guys really could rebut with substance.  The fact that you don't, however, rreinforces the opinion that you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all opinion!
> 
> Conservative opinion is that marriage and all the government benefits and tax advantages that go along with it should be restricted and limited.  I believe that Americans should be free to marry whoever they want - apparently that labels me as a liberal.
> 
> On most political subjects, there is no right opinion or wrong opinion, only differences of those opinions.
> 
> The best government size and scope?  A matter of opinion.
> 
> Freedom in marriage?  A matter of opinion.
> 
> Defining God (or lack there of)?  A matter of opinion.
> 
> The things that separate conservatives from liberals in politics is ALL a matter of opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there are valid arguments for all those 'opinions'.  The right to worship as one chooses or not worship anything is not opinion.  It is a policy, an unalienable right recognized by the U.S. Constitution.  A hard core fact.
> *
> The Constitution never intended the federal government to be involved in marriage laws that were to be the prerogative of the state.  The Constitution never intended for special federal tax benefits or penalities to be imposed on anybody, married or not, regardless of how marriage was defined, or for any other reason.   That is not opinion.  Those are hard core facts.*
> 
> The benefits of the traditional marriage can be analyzed using hard data of affluence, child poverty, crime rates, porperty values, neighborhood stability.  Not opinion.  Hard core fact that has nothing to do with same sex marriage and can be evaluated on its own merit.
> 
> The best government in size and scope can be measured against the amount of freedoms we enjoy and the quantity and extent of choices and options limited to us via actions of government.  We are informed by concrete documents of history what the Founders intended government to be and what it has become is visible, tangible, and obvious for anybody willing to see.  Not opinion.  Hard core fact.
> 
> But even when it comes to opinion--those who prefer a Mayberry USA to a Deadwood in its hellfire days, for instance--even there the obvious intent of the Founders was that the people themselves would choose what they wanted.  It would not be dictated to them by the federal government.  And that too is not opinion, but hard core fact.
Click to expand...


I can't help but wonder about this paragraph and the conservative policy issued from the _federal level_ called the Defense Of Marriage Act that was recently struck down.  It appears to me that conservatives are all about changing lives from the top down when it comes to marriage.

Are you a weird conservative who actively challenged DOMA, or is DOMA an inconvenient truth about conservative ideology?


----------



## MeBelle

Pogo said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never see a Liberal calling Obama the messiah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), son of the one-time presidential contender, said Obama&#8217;s victory overwhelmed him.
> &#8220;I cried all night. I&#8217;m going to be crying for the next four years,&#8221; he said. &#8220;What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation&#8217;s political history. ... *The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.&#8221;*
> Black lawmakers emotional about Obama's success - POLITICO.com Print View
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlyYTYMHWYw]THE AGE OF OBAMA: Jamie Foxx - "Obama is Our God, Our Lord and Savior"! - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> &#8220;This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament.&#8221; . . .&#8221;I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don&#8217;t have that too often. No, seriously. It&#8217;s a dramatic event.&#8221; &#8212; Chris Matthews
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you notice that your citation there (actually both of them) refer to an _event _rather than a person?
> 
> And in between -- Jamie Foxx is a comedian satirizing the very strawman we're talking about.
> 
> Nice try though.
Click to expand...


I guess you missed this:

and
   ​
There used to be a razz emoticon, sorry you and Wolfsister77  missed the lightheartedness of my post.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Sorry, I must be blind as a bat-I did miss those emoticons. Oops.


----------



## Pogo

Wolfsister77 said:


> Sorry, I must be blind as a bat-I did miss those emoticons. Oops.



I saw them but didn't know what they meant.  
Methinks MeBelle needs to work on her delivery.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Good point, reading intent in internet postings can be tricky sometimes.


----------



## HUGGY

Wolfsister77 said:


> I never see a Liberal calling Obama the messiah. That only comes from Conservatives as a way to denigrate Liberals.



It is the circular logic of a republican zombie.  They make it up out of thin air..they publicly say it..they repeat it...then they blame the dems for it.  It's the chistofacsist's noise machine.  The only mention of the word "messiah" associated with Obama comes from republican morons.  

I think most dems are dissappointed in Obama's perfromance but are still thankfull we are not being led by the Bishop Morman cult leader.

As far as I can tell there will never be agreement in our government again.  The repubs are so hatefull and devicive and subvert the will of America in elections.  They have made so many enemies that no matter what else happens they will never be allowed to run this country again.

If you cannot respect the will of the people and spend all of your energy subverting the results of fair and open elections you will eventually be weeded out of the process.


----------



## MeBelle

Pogo said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I must be blind as a bat-I did miss those emoticons. Oops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw them but didn't know what they meant.
> Methinks MeBelle needs to work on her delivery.
Click to expand...


 Maybe Mr Pogo needs to work on his  bone


----------



## Foxfyre

AVG-JOE said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all opinion!
> 
> Conservative opinion is that marriage and all the government benefits and tax advantages that go along with it should be restricted and limited.  I believe that Americans should be free to marry whoever they want - apparently that labels me as a liberal.
> 
> On most political subjects, there is no right opinion or wrong opinion, only differences of those opinions.
> 
> The best government size and scope?  A matter of opinion.
> 
> Freedom in marriage?  A matter of opinion.
> 
> Defining God (or lack there of)?  A matter of opinion.
> 
> The things that separate conservatives from liberals in politics is ALL a matter of opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there are valid arguments for all those 'opinions'.  The right to worship as one chooses or not worship anything is not opinion.  It is a policy, an unalienable right recognized by the U.S. Constitution.  A hard core fact.
> *
> The Constitution never intended the federal government to be involved in marriage laws that were to be the prerogative of the state.  The Constitution never intended for special federal tax benefits or penalities to be imposed on anybody, married or not, regardless of how marriage was defined, or for any other reason.   That is not opinion.  Those are hard core facts.*
> 
> The benefits of the traditional marriage can be analyzed using hard data of affluence, child poverty, crime rates, porperty values, neighborhood stability.  Not opinion.  Hard core fact that has nothing to do with same sex marriage and can be evaluated on its own merit.
> 
> The best government in size and scope can be measured against the amount of freedoms we enjoy and the quantity and extent of choices and options limited to us via actions of government.  We are informed by concrete documents of history what the Founders intended government to be and what it has become is visible, tangible, and obvious for anybody willing to see.  Not opinion.  Hard core fact.
> 
> But even when it comes to opinion--those who prefer a Mayberry USA to a Deadwood in its hellfire days, for instance--even there the obvious intent of the Founders was that the people themselves would choose what they wanted.  It would not be dictated to them by the federal government.  And that too is not opinion, but hard core fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't help but wonder about this paragraph and the conservative policy issued from the _federal level_ called the Defense Of Marriage Act that was recently struck down.  It appears to me that conservatives are all about changing lives from the top down when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Are you a weird conservative who actively challenged DOMA, or is DOMA an inconvenient truth about conservative ideology?
Click to expand...


DOMA is not conservative or liberal ideology.  It is a concept that people either agree with or they don't.  Same as abortion or public nudity or whether there should be a creche on a courthouse lawn.  Classical liberalism/modern American conservatism may or may not embrace any of the social issues, but believes it wrong for the federal government to be involved with that in any form other than to defend those who must be allowed the right to embrace whatever points of view they wish to embrace short of violating the rights of others.

I would not put my child in a school where Creationism was taught as science.  Nor should I be required to.  But unless those who want to teach Creationism as science are allowed to do so, then there is no freedom.  Unless we the people are free to govern ourselves and form whatever sorts of society we wish to have, then the Constitution is moot.   That means that those who want a Mayberry USA should be allowed to have that but it should not be able to dictate to Deadwood who wants no part of that.

THAT is the principle involved.  DOMA is a separate issue that is discussed ad nauseum as a separate issue.  But it is only one of thousands of concepts and issues that factor into what freedom actually is.  As a free person, I should be able to embrace anything I believe fully and form societies with like minded people so long as unalienable rights are not violated.  I should not be able to dictate what sort of society you and your like minded associates would choose to organize and you and yours should also leave me and mine in peace.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there are valid arguments for all those 'opinions'.  The right to worship as one chooses or not worship anything is not opinion.  It is a policy, an unalienable right recognized by the U.S. Constitution.  A hard core fact.
> *
> The Constitution never intended the federal government to be involved in marriage laws that were to be the prerogative of the state.  The Constitution never intended for special federal tax benefits or penalities to be imposed on anybody, married or not, regardless of how marriage was defined, or for any other reason.   That is not opinion.  Those are hard core facts.*
> 
> The benefits of the traditional marriage can be analyzed using hard data of affluence, child poverty, crime rates, porperty values, neighborhood stability.  Not opinion.  Hard core fact that has nothing to do with same sex marriage and can be evaluated on its own merit.
> 
> The best government in size and scope can be measured against the amount of freedoms we enjoy and the quantity and extent of choices and options limited to us via actions of government.  We are informed by concrete documents of history what the Founders intended government to be and what it has become is visible, tangible, and obvious for anybody willing to see.  Not opinion.  Hard core fact.
> 
> But even when it comes to opinion--those who prefer a Mayberry USA to a Deadwood in its hellfire days, for instance--even there the obvious intent of the Founders was that the people themselves would choose what they wanted.  It would not be dictated to them by the federal government.  And that too is not opinion, but hard core fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help but wonder about this paragraph and the conservative policy issued from the _federal level_ called the Defense Of Marriage Act that was recently struck down.  It appears to me that conservatives are all about changing lives from the top down when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Are you a weird conservative who actively challenged DOMA, or is DOMA an inconvenient truth about conservative ideology?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *DOMA is not conservative or liberal ideology. * It is a concept that people either agree with or they don't.  Same as abortion or public nudity or whether there should be a creche on a courthouse lawn.  Classical liberalism/modern American conservatism may or may not embrace any of the social issues, but believes it wrong for the federal government to be involved with that in any form other than to defend those who must be allowed the right to embrace whatever points of view they wish to embrace short of violating the rights of others.
> 
> I would not put my child in a school where Creationism was taught as science.  Nor should I be required to.  But unless those who want to teach Creationism as science are allowed to do so, then there is no freedom.  Unless we the people are free to govern ourselves and form whatever sorts of society we wish to have, then the Constitution is moot.   That means that those who want a Mayberry USA should be allowed to have that but it should not be able to dictate to Deadwood who wants no part of that.
> 
> THAT is the principle involved.  DOMA is a separate issue that is discussed ad nauseum as a separate issue.  But it is only one of thousands of concepts and issues that factor into what freedom actually is.  As a free person, I should be able to embrace anything I believe fully and form societies with like minded people so long as unalienable rights are not violated.  I should not be able to dictate what sort of society you and your like minded associates would choose to organize and you and yours should also leave me and mine in peace.
Click to expand...


 

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, Foxfyre.  With the exception of Clinton signing it for compromise, and a couple of conservative blue-dogs on the left voting for it, DOMA belongs to the Republicans and the Republicans are the party of the conservatives.

Extremist Conservatives are just as interested in pushing their agenda from the top down as extremist Progressives.

The problem is extremism, exclusion and intolerance.  I so look forward to the day when reasonable Conservatives are as incensed by the extremism and intolerance in their own party as they are by the intolerant whackos on the left.


----------



## RKMBrown

AVG-JOE said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help but wonder about this paragraph and the conservative policy issued from the _federal level_ called the Defense Of Marriage Act that was recently struck down.  It appears to me that conservatives are all about changing lives from the top down when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Are you a weird conservative who actively challenged DOMA, or is DOMA an inconvenient truth about conservative ideology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *DOMA is not conservative or liberal ideology. * It is a concept that people either agree with or they don't.  Same as abortion or public nudity or whether there should be a creche on a courthouse lawn.  Classical liberalism/modern American conservatism may or may not embrace any of the social issues, but believes it wrong for the federal government to be involved with that in any form other than to defend those who must be allowed the right to embrace whatever points of view they wish to embrace short of violating the rights of others.
> 
> I would not put my child in a school where Creationism was taught as science.  Nor should I be required to.  But unless those who want to teach Creationism as science are allowed to do so, then there is no freedom.  Unless we the people are free to govern ourselves and form whatever sorts of society we wish to have, then the Constitution is moot.   That means that those who want a Mayberry USA should be allowed to have that but it should not be able to dictate to Deadwood who wants no part of that.
> 
> THAT is the principle involved.  DOMA is a separate issue that is discussed ad nauseum as a separate issue.  But it is only one of thousands of concepts and issues that factor into what freedom actually is.  As a free person, I should be able to embrace anything I believe fully and form societies with like minded people so long as unalienable rights are not violated.  I should not be able to dictate what sort of society you and your like minded associates would choose to organize and you and yours should also leave me and mine in peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, Foxfyre.  With the exception of Clinton signing it for compromise, and a couple of conservative blue-dogs on the left voting for it, DOMA belongs to the Republicans and the Republicans are the party of the conservatives.
> 
> Extremist Conservatives are just as interested in pushing their agenda from the top down as extremist Progressives.
> 
> The problem is extremism, exclusion and intolerance.  I so look forward to the day when reasonable Conservatives are as incensed by the extremism and intolerance in their own party as they are by the intolerant whackos on the left.
Click to expand...

You are FOS.  Anti-Gay is the hate and fear felt by the anti-gay crowd.  Just because the democrats switch their view on gays every year does not give them the credit for being pro-gay.  That the is dumbest opinion I've ever read on this board. Most conservatives did not like Romney.  Romney was anti-gay rights... Hated him for that and many other reasons.  Romney was a progressive liberal posing as a republican.  I'm a constitutional conservative christian heterosexual and did not vote for Romney.  Pull my finger jerk.


----------



## jon_berzerk

RKMBrown said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *DOMA is not conservative or liberal ideology. * It is a concept that people either agree with or they don't.  Same as abortion or public nudity or whether there should be a creche on a courthouse lawn.  Classical liberalism/modern American conservatism may or may not embrace any of the social issues, but believes it wrong for the federal government to be involved with that in any form other than to defend those who must be allowed the right to embrace whatever points of view they wish to embrace short of violating the rights of others.
> 
> I would not put my child in a school where Creationism was taught as science.  Nor should I be required to.  But unless those who want to teach Creationism as science are allowed to do so, then there is no freedom.  Unless we the people are free to govern ourselves and form whatever sorts of society we wish to have, then the Constitution is moot.   That means that those who want a Mayberry USA should be allowed to have that but it should not be able to dictate to Deadwood who wants no part of that.
> 
> THAT is the principle involved.  DOMA is a separate issue that is discussed ad nauseum as a separate issue.  But it is only one of thousands of concepts and issues that factor into what freedom actually is.  As a free person, I should be able to embrace anything I believe fully and form societies with like minded people so long as unalienable rights are not violated.  I should not be able to dictate what sort of society you and your like minded associates would choose to organize and you and yours should also leave me and mine in peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, Foxfyre.  With the exception of Clinton signing it for compromise, and a couple of conservative blue-dogs on the left voting for it, DOMA belongs to the Republicans and the Republicans are the party of the conservatives.
> 
> Extremist Conservatives are just as interested in pushing their agenda from the top down as extremist Progressives.
> 
> The problem is extremism, exclusion and intolerance.  I so look forward to the day when reasonable Conservatives are as incensed by the extremism and intolerance in their own party as they are by the intolerant whackos on the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are FOS.  Anti-Gay is the hate and fear felt by the anti-gay crowd.  Just because the democrats switch their view on gays every year does not give them the credit for being pro-gay.  That the is dumbest opinion I've ever read on this board. Most conservatives did not like Romney.  Romney was anti-gay rights... Hated him for that and many other reasons.  Romney was a progressive liberal posing as a republican.  I'm a constitutional conservative and did not vote for Romney.  Pull my finger jerk.
Click to expand...


you got that right about Mitt


----------



## Foxfyre

AVG-JOE said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help but wonder about this paragraph and the conservative policy issued from the _federal level_ called the Defense Of Marriage Act that was recently struck down.  It appears to me that conservatives are all about changing lives from the top down when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Are you a weird conservative who actively challenged DOMA, or is DOMA an inconvenient truth about conservative ideology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *DOMA is not conservative or liberal ideology. * It is a concept that people either agree with or they don't.  Same as abortion or public nudity or whether there should be a creche on a courthouse lawn.  Classical liberalism/modern American conservatism may or may not embrace any of the social issues, but believes it wrong for the federal government to be involved with that in any form other than to defend those who must be allowed the right to embrace whatever points of view they wish to embrace short of violating the rights of others.
> 
> I would not put my child in a school where Creationism was taught as science.  Nor should I be required to.  But unless those who want to teach Creationism as science are allowed to do so, then there is no freedom.  Unless we the people are free to govern ourselves and form whatever sorts of society we wish to have, then the Constitution is moot.   That means that those who want a Mayberry USA should be allowed to have that but it should not be able to dictate to Deadwood who wants no part of that.
> 
> THAT is the principle involved.  DOMA is a separate issue that is discussed ad nauseum as a separate issue.  But it is only one of thousands of concepts and issues that factor into what freedom actually is.  As a free person, I should be able to embrace anything I believe fully and form societies with like minded people so long as unalienable rights are not violated.  I should not be able to dictate what sort of society you and your like minded associates would choose to organize and you and yours should also leave me and mine in peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, Foxfyre.  With the exception of Clinton signing it for compromise, and a couple of conservative blue-dogs on the left voting for it, DOMA belongs to the Republicans and the Republicans are the party of the conservatives.
> 
> Extremist Conservatives are just as interested in pushing their agenda from the top down as extremist Progressives.
> 
> The problem is extremism, exclusion and intolerance.  I so look forward to the day when reasonable Conservatives are as incensed by the extremism and intolerance in their own party as they are by the intolerant whackos on the left.
Click to expand...


News flash Joe, this is NOT about Republicans or Democrats.  There are liberal and conservative Republicans; liberal and conservative Democrats.  What is conservative/classical liberal as it is understood in America today is an idea, a concept, a conviction that in order to be free, we must first have our rights secured, and then we must be able to live our lives as we choose without interference from a central government authority.

The Founders risked all that they owned, their blood, their treasure, their loved ones, their very lives to free us from monarchs, popes, or other authorities who would assign us the rights we would have, the beliefs we were required to profess, the lifestyle we would live.

So tolerance is a two way street.  To deny another his intolerance, short of denying unalienable rights, is in itself a freedom robbing intolerance.   There must be as much freedom to scorn and distrust the religious, for example, as there must be freedom to scorn and distrust the Atheist.  And neither should be able to require the other to adopt or respect his/her point of view, much less adopt it.

The conservative may abhor another's prejudices, but knows that freedom requires us to not interfere with the other person's prejudices except when they deny others their unalienable rights.  The Westboro Baptists, for instance, are held in utter contempt, but will be left alone in their narrow minded hatefulness.  They will be resisted, however, when they attempt to force that narrow minded hatefulness on others.

But even as they too condemn a group like the Westboro Baptist, the modern American liberal too often demands that others accept their version of virtue or morality.  Thus they see no problem with attempting to destroy the livelihood and peace of a Rush Limbaugh or a Chick fil a or a Paula Deen when such people fail to measure up to the liberal's version of what morality and/or virtue is.   There is no live and let live--no tolerance--no understanding of what real liberty is--in most of the modern liberals' world.  And to make matters worse the modern day liberal is rarely consistent.  They are excessively selective in who will be forced to conform or who will punished if they do not, and reserve their contempt and coercion for those with whom they do not feel ideologically compatible.

And for those of us conservatives/classical liberals who see it as a dangerous thing for government to dictate to us how we must live our lives, it is only a natural consequence that we would hold in contempt a liberalism that would also dictate to us how we must think, how we must believe, how we must speak, how we must live our lives.  The contempt is not for what the liberal believes.  The contempt is for what the liberal would force upon everybody else by whatever means deemed necessary.


----------



## thanatos144

People don't like liberals because they are dishonest assholes


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *DOMA is not conservative or liberal ideology. * It is a concept that people either agree with or they don't.  Same as abortion or public nudity or whether there should be a creche on a courthouse lawn.  Classical liberalism/modern American conservatism may or may not embrace any of the social issues, but believes it wrong for the federal government to be involved with that in any form other than to defend those who must be allowed the right to embrace whatever points of view they wish to embrace short of violating the rights of others.
> 
> I would not put my child in a school where Creationism was taught as science.  Nor should I be required to.  But unless those who want to teach Creationism as science are allowed to do so, then there is no freedom.  Unless we the people are free to govern ourselves and form whatever sorts of society we wish to have, then the Constitution is moot.   That means that those who want a Mayberry USA should be allowed to have that but it should not be able to dictate to Deadwood who wants no part of that.
> 
> THAT is the principle involved.  DOMA is a separate issue that is discussed ad nauseum as a separate issue.  But it is only one of thousands of concepts and issues that factor into what freedom actually is.  As a free person, I should be able to embrace anything I believe fully and form societies with like minded people so long as unalienable rights are not violated.  I should not be able to dictate what sort of society you and your like minded associates would choose to organize and you and yours should also leave me and mine in peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, Foxfyre.  With the exception of Clinton signing it for compromise, and a couple of conservative blue-dogs on the left voting for it, DOMA belongs to the Republicans and the Republicans are the party of the conservatives.
> 
> Extremist Conservatives are just as interested in pushing their agenda from the top down as extremist Progressives.
> 
> The problem is extremism, exclusion and intolerance.  I so look forward to the day when reasonable Conservatives are as incensed by the extremism and intolerance in their own party as they are by the intolerant whackos on the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> News flash Joe, this is NOT about Republicans or Democrats.  There are liberal and conservative Republicans; liberal and conservative Democrats.  What is conservative/classical liberal as it is understood in America today is an idea, a concept, a conviction that in order to be free, we must first have our rights secured, and then we must be able to live our lives as we choose without interference from a central government authority.
> 
> The Founders risked all that they owned, their blood, their treasure, their loved ones, their very lives to free us from monarchs, popes, or other authorities who would assign us the rights we would have, the beliefs we were required to profess, the lifestyle we would live.
> 
> So tolerance is a two way street.  To deny another his intolerance, short of denying unalienable rights, is in itself a freedom robbing intolerance.   There must be as much freedom to scorn and distrust the religious, for example, as there must be freedom to scorn and distrust the Atheist.  And neither should be able to require the other to adopt or respect his/her point of view, much less adopt it.
> 
> The conservative may abhor another's prejudices, but knows that freedom requires us to not interfere with the other person's prejudices except when they deny others their unalienable rights.  The Westboro Baptists, for instance, are held in utter contempt, but will be left alone in their narrow minded hatefulness.  They will be resisted, however, when they attempt to force that narrow minded hatefulness on others.
> 
> But even as they too condemn a group like the Westboro Baptist, the modern American liberal too often demands that others accept their version of virtue or morality.  Thus they see no problem with attempting to destroy the livelihood and peace of a Rush Limbaugh or a Chick fil a or a Paula Deen when such people fail to measure up to the liberal's version of what morality and/or virtue is.   There is no live and let live--no tolerance--no understanding of what real liberty is--in most of the modern liberals' world.  And to make matters worse the modern day liberal is rarely consistent.  They are excessively selective in who will be forced to conform or who will punished if they do not, and reserve their contempt and coercion for those with whom they do not feel ideologically compatible.
> 
> And for those of us conservatives/classical liberals who see it as a dangerous thing for government to dictate to us how we must live our lives, it is only a natural consequence that we would hold in contempt a liberalism that would also dictate to us how we must think, how we must believe, how we must speak, how we must live our lives.  The contempt is not for what the liberal believes.  The contempt is for what the liberal would force upon everybody else by whatever means deemed necessary.
Click to expand...


Herein lies your problem. You keep blaming liberals for things they are not responsible for. Much of which conservatives are to blame.

Example, Rush Limbaugh and Paula Deen's problem is with corporate sponsors.


----------



## AVG-JOE

RKMBrown said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *DOMA is not conservative or liberal ideology. * It is a concept that people either agree with or they don't.  Same as abortion or public nudity or whether there should be a creche on a courthouse lawn.  Classical liberalism/modern American conservatism may or may not embrace any of the social issues, but believes it wrong for the federal government to be involved with that in any form other than to defend those who must be allowed the right to embrace whatever points of view they wish to embrace short of violating the rights of others.
> 
> I would not put my child in a school where Creationism was taught as science.  Nor should I be required to.  But unless those who want to teach Creationism as science are allowed to do so, then there is no freedom.  Unless we the people are free to govern ourselves and form whatever sorts of society we wish to have, then the Constitution is moot.   That means that those who want a Mayberry USA should be allowed to have that but it should not be able to dictate to Deadwood who wants no part of that.
> 
> THAT is the principle involved.  DOMA is a separate issue that is discussed ad nauseum as a separate issue.  But it is only one of thousands of concepts and issues that factor into what freedom actually is.  As a free person, I should be able to embrace anything I believe fully and form societies with like minded people so long as unalienable rights are not violated.  I should not be able to dictate what sort of society you and your like minded associates would choose to organize and you and yours should also leave me and mine in peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, Foxfyre.  With the exception of Clinton signing it for compromise, and a couple of conservative blue-dogs on the left voting for it, DOMA belongs to the Republicans and the Republicans are the party of the conservatives.
> 
> Extremist Conservatives are just as interested in pushing their agenda from the top down as extremist Progressives.
> 
> The problem is extremism, exclusion and intolerance.  I so look forward to the day when reasonable Conservatives are as incensed by the extremism and intolerance in their own party as they are by the intolerant whackos on the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are FOS.  Anti-Gay is the hate and fear felt by the anti-gay crowd.  Just because the democrats switch their view on gays every year does not give them the credit for being pro-gay.  That the is dumbest opinion I've ever read on this board. Most conservatives did not like Romney.  Romney was anti-gay rights... Hated him for that and many other reasons.  Romney was a progressive liberal posing as a republican.  I'm a constitutional conservative christian heterosexual and did not vote for Romney.  Pull my finger jerk.
Click to expand...


And right on schedule... Cue the intolerant conservative red-neck.
​


----------



## AVG-JOE

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *DOMA is not conservative or liberal ideology. * It is a concept that people either agree with or they don't.  Same as abortion or public nudity or whether there should be a creche on a courthouse lawn.  Classical liberalism/modern American conservatism may or may not embrace any of the social issues, but believes it wrong for the federal government to be involved with that in any form other than to defend those who must be allowed the right to embrace whatever points of view they wish to embrace short of violating the rights of others.
> 
> I would not put my child in a school where Creationism was taught as science.  Nor should I be required to.  But unless those who want to teach Creationism as science are allowed to do so, then there is no freedom.  Unless we the people are free to govern ourselves and form whatever sorts of society we wish to have, then the Constitution is moot.   That means that those who want a Mayberry USA should be allowed to have that but it should not be able to dictate to Deadwood who wants no part of that.
> 
> THAT is the principle involved.  DOMA is a separate issue that is discussed ad nauseum as a separate issue.  But it is only one of thousands of concepts and issues that factor into what freedom actually is.  As a free person, I should be able to embrace anything I believe fully and form societies with like minded people so long as unalienable rights are not violated.  I should not be able to dictate what sort of society you and your like minded associates would choose to organize and you and yours should also leave me and mine in peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, Foxfyre.  With the exception of Clinton signing it for compromise, and a couple of conservative blue-dogs on the left voting for it, DOMA belongs to the Republicans and the Republicans are the party of the conservatives.
> 
> Extremist Conservatives are just as interested in pushing their agenda from the top down as extremist Progressives.
> 
> The problem is extremism, exclusion and intolerance.  I so look forward to the day when reasonable Conservatives are as incensed by the extremism and intolerance in their own party as they are by the intolerant whackos on the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> News flash Joe, this is NOT about Republicans or Democrats.  There are liberal and conservative Republicans; liberal and conservative Democrats.  What is conservative/classical liberal as it is understood in America today is an idea, a concept, a conviction that in order to be free, we must first have our rights secured, and then we must be able to live our lives as we choose without interference from a central government authority.
> 
> The Founders risked all that they owned, their blood, their treasure, their loved ones, their very lives to free us from monarchs, popes, or other authorities who would assign us the rights we would have, the beliefs we were required to profess, the lifestyle we would live.
> 
> So tolerance is a two way street.  To deny another his intolerance, short of denying unalienable rights, is in itself a freedom robbing intolerance.   There must be as much freedom to scorn and distrust the religious, for example, as there must be freedom to scorn and distrust the Atheist.  And neither should be able to require the other to adopt or respect his/her point of view, much less adopt it.
> 
> The conservative may abhor another's prejudices, but knows that freedom requires us to not interfere with the other person's prejudices except when they deny others their unalienable rights.  The Westboro Baptists, for instance, are held in utter contempt, but will be left alone in their narrow minded hatefulness.  They will be resisted, however, when they attempt to force that narrow minded hatefulness on others.
> 
> But even as they too condemn a group like the Westboro Baptist, the modern American liberal too often demands that others accept their version of virtue or morality.  Thus they see no problem with attempting to destroy the livelihood and peace of a Rush Limbaugh or a Chick fil a or a Paula Deen when such people fail to measure up to the liberal's version of what morality and/or virtue is.   There is no live and let live--no tolerance--no understanding of what real liberty is--in most of the modern liberals' world.  And to make matters worse the modern day liberal is rarely consistent.  They are excessively selective in who will be forced to conform or who will punished if they do not, and reserve their contempt and coercion for those with whom they do not feel ideologically compatible.
> 
> And for those of us conservatives/classical liberals who see it as a dangerous thing for government to dictate to us how we must live our lives, it is only a natural consequence that we would hold in contempt a liberalism that would also dictate to us how we must think, how we must believe, how we must speak, how we must live our lives.  The contempt is not for what the liberal believes.  The contempt is for what the liberal would force upon everybody else by whatever means deemed necessary.
Click to expand...


A little tolerance for my lifestyle is all I've ever asked...


----------



## Foxfyre

AVG-JOE said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, Foxfyre.  With the exception of Clinton signing it for compromise, and a couple of conservative blue-dogs on the left voting for it, DOMA belongs to the Republicans and the Republicans are the party of the conservatives.
> 
> Extremist Conservatives are just as interested in pushing their agenda from the top down as extremist Progressives.
> 
> The problem is extremism, exclusion and intolerance.  I so look forward to the day when reasonable Conservatives are as incensed by the extremism and intolerance in their own party as they are by the intolerant whackos on the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News flash Joe, this is NOT about Republicans or Democrats.  There are liberal and conservative Republicans; liberal and conservative Democrats.  What is conservative/classical liberal as it is understood in America today is an idea, a concept, a conviction that in order to be free, we must first have our rights secured, and then we must be able to live our lives as we choose without interference from a central government authority.
> 
> The Founders risked all that they owned, their blood, their treasure, their loved ones, their very lives to free us from monarchs, popes, or other authorities who would assign us the rights we would have, the beliefs we were required to profess, the lifestyle we would live.
> 
> So tolerance is a two way street.  To deny another his intolerance, short of denying unalienable rights, is in itself a freedom robbing intolerance.   There must be as much freedom to scorn and distrust the religious, for example, as there must be freedom to scorn and distrust the Atheist.  And neither should be able to require the other to adopt or respect his/her point of view, much less adopt it.
> 
> The conservative may abhor another's prejudices, but knows that freedom requires us to not interfere with the other person's prejudices except when they deny others their unalienable rights.  The Westboro Baptists, for instance, are held in utter contempt, but will be left alone in their narrow minded hatefulness.  They will be resisted, however, when they attempt to force that narrow minded hatefulness on others.
> 
> But even as they too condemn a group like the Westboro Baptist, the modern American liberal too often demands that others accept their version of virtue or morality.  Thus they see no problem with attempting to destroy the livelihood and peace of a Rush Limbaugh or a Chick fil a or a Paula Deen when such people fail to measure up to the liberal's version of what morality and/or virtue is.   There is no live and let live--no tolerance--no understanding of what real liberty is--in most of the modern liberals' world.  And to make matters worse the modern day liberal is rarely consistent.  They are excessively selective in who will be forced to conform or who will punished if they do not, and reserve their contempt and coercion for those with whom they do not feel ideologically compatible.
> 
> And for those of us conservatives/classical liberals who see it as a dangerous thing for government to dictate to us how we must live our lives, it is only a natural consequence that we would hold in contempt a liberalism that would also dictate to us how we must think, how we must believe, how we must speak, how we must live our lives.  The contempt is not for what the liberal believes.  The contempt is for what the liberal would force upon everybody else by whatever means deemed necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A little tolerance for my lifestyle is all I've ever asked...
Click to expand...


As have I.   But the conservative knows that tolerance and acceptance are separate things.  To expect others to tolerate and allow my opinions, language, lifestyle that affects them in no way is a reasonable expectation.  To expect others to accept/approve/accommodate my opinions, language and/or lfestyle is not.

And to seek to punish me, destroy me, damage my business or livelihood because you don't like a word I used or don't like my attitude or convictions about something is not only the antithesis of liberty, but it is evil.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> News flash Joe, this is NOT about Republicans or Democrats.  There are liberal and conservative Republicans; liberal and conservative Democrats.  What is conservative/classical liberal as it is understood in America today is an idea, a concept, a conviction that in order to be free, we must first have our rights secured, and then we must be able to live our lives as we choose without interference from a central government authority.
> 
> The Founders risked all that they owned, their blood, their treasure, their loved ones, their very lives to free us from monarchs, popes, or other authorities who would assign us the rights we would have, the beliefs we were required to profess, the lifestyle we would live.
> 
> So tolerance is a two way street.  To deny another his intolerance, short of denying unalienable rights, is in itself a freedom robbing intolerance.   There must be as much freedom to scorn and distrust the religious, for example, as there must be freedom to scorn and distrust the Atheist.  And neither should be able to require the other to adopt or respect his/her point of view, much less adopt it.
> 
> The conservative may abhor another's prejudices, but knows that freedom requires us to not interfere with the other person's prejudices except when they deny others their unalienable rights.  The Westboro Baptists, for instance, are held in utter contempt, but will be left alone in their narrow minded hatefulness.  They will be resisted, however, when they attempt to force that narrow minded hatefulness on others.
> 
> But even as they too condemn a group like the Westboro Baptist, the modern American liberal too often demands that others accept their version of virtue or morality.  Thus they see no problem with attempting to destroy the livelihood and peace of a Rush Limbaugh or a Chick fil a or a Paula Deen when such people fail to measure up to the liberal's version of what morality and/or virtue is.   There is no live and let live--no tolerance--no understanding of what real liberty is--in most of the modern liberals' world.  And to make matters worse the modern day liberal is rarely consistent.  They are excessively selective in who will be forced to conform or who will punished if they do not, and reserve their contempt and coercion for those with whom they do not feel ideologically compatible.
> 
> And for those of us conservatives/classical liberals who see it as a dangerous thing for government to dictate to us how we must live our lives, it is only a natural consequence that we would hold in contempt a liberalism that would also dictate to us how we must think, how we must believe, how we must speak, how we must live our lives.  The contempt is not for what the liberal believes.  The contempt is for what the liberal would force upon everybody else by whatever means deemed necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A little tolerance for my lifestyle is all I've ever asked...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As have I.   But the conservative knows that tolerance and acceptance are separate things.  To expect others to tolerate and allow my opinions, language, lifestyle that affects them in no way is a reasonable expectation.  To expect others to accept/approve/accommodate my opinions, language and/or lfestyle is not.
> 
> And to seek to punish me, destroy me, damage my business or livelihood because you don't like a word I used or don't like my attitude or convictions about something is not only the antithesis of liberty, but it is evil.
Click to expand...


SO...liberals are allowed to vehemently disagree with someone like Rush Limbaugh, just as long as they do it SILENTLY.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> News flash Joe, this is NOT about Republicans or Democrats.  There are liberal and conservative Republicans; liberal and conservative Democrats.  What is conservative/classical liberal as it is understood in America today is an idea, a concept, a conviction that in order to be free, we must first have our rights secured, and then we must be able to live our lives as we choose without interference from a central government authority.
> 
> The Founders risked all that they owned, their blood, their treasure, their loved ones, their very lives to free us from monarchs, popes, or other authorities who would assign us the rights we would have, the beliefs we were required to profess, the lifestyle we would live.
> 
> So tolerance is a two way street.  To deny another his intolerance, short of denying unalienable rights, is in itself a freedom robbing intolerance.   There must be as much freedom to scorn and distrust the religious, for example, as there must be freedom to scorn and distrust the Atheist.  And neither should be able to require the other to adopt or respect his/her point of view, much less adopt it.
> 
> The conservative may abhor another's prejudices, but knows that freedom requires us to not interfere with the other person's prejudices except when they deny others their unalienable rights.  The Westboro Baptists, for instance, are held in utter contempt, but will be left alone in their narrow minded hatefulness.  They will be resisted, however, when they attempt to force that narrow minded hatefulness on others.
> 
> But even as they too condemn a group like the Westboro Baptist, the modern American liberal too often demands that others accept their version of virtue or morality.  Thus they see no problem with attempting to destroy the livelihood and peace of a Rush Limbaugh or a Chick fil a or a Paula Deen when such people fail to measure up to the liberal's version of what morality and/or virtue is.   There is no live and let live--no tolerance--no understanding of what real liberty is--in most of the modern liberals' world.  And to make matters worse the modern day liberal is rarely consistent.  They are excessively selective in who will be forced to conform or who will punished if they do not, and reserve their contempt and coercion for those with whom they do not feel ideologically compatible.
> 
> And for those of us conservatives/classical liberals who see it as a dangerous thing for government to dictate to us how we must live our lives, it is only a natural consequence that we would hold in contempt a liberalism that would also dictate to us how we must think, how we must believe, how we must speak, how we must live our lives.  The contempt is not for what the liberal believes.  The contempt is for what the liberal would force upon everybody else by whatever means deemed necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A little tolerance for my lifestyle is all I've ever asked...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As have I.   But the conservative knows that tolerance and acceptance are separate things.  To expect others to tolerate and allow my opinions, language, lifestyle that affects them in no way is a reasonable expectation.  To expect others to accept/approve/accommodate my opinions, language and/or lfestyle is not.
> 
> And to seek to punish me, destroy me, damage my business or livelihood because you don't like a word I used or don't like my attitude or convictions about something is not only the antithesis of liberty, but it is evil.
Click to expand...


The top paragraph needs a rewrite to make a coherent sentence but from what I gather you're not talking about "evil", or liberty, or politics.  You're talking about social mores, as expressed through the free market.  That's not legislation.

The reverse of what you're bemoaning would be to require consumers to buy things they don't want.  Good luck with that...


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little tolerance for my lifestyle is all I've ever asked...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As have I.   But the conservative knows that tolerance and acceptance are separate things.  To expect others to tolerate and allow my opinions, language, lifestyle that affects them in no way is a reasonable expectation.  To expect others to accept/approve/accommodate my opinions, language and/or lfestyle is not.
> 
> And to seek to punish me, destroy me, damage my business or livelihood because you don't like a word I used or don't like my attitude or convictions about something is not only the antithesis of liberty, but it is evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The top paragraph needs a rewrite to make a coherent sentence but from what I gather you're not talking about "evil", or liberty, or politics.  You're talking about social mores, as expressed through the free market.  That's not legislation.
> 
> The reverse of what you're bemoaning would be to require consumers to buy things they don't want.  Good luck with that...
Click to expand...


It is coherant, with a little punctuation, but to rephrase:   as a conservative/classical liberal, I see freedom as having the right to my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle that does not affect you in any way.  Tolerance does not require you to accept, endorse, appreciate, emulate, or respect my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle.  It only requires you to not interfere.

And I am not talking about social mores being evil.  What is evil is Citizen A intentionally trying to harm or punish or destroy Citizen B for no other reason than Citizen B uses words or expresses opinions or endorses a lifestyle that Citizen A does not like or accept.

I don't care whether a person is Republican, Democrat, a little green man from Mars, or what label he puts on himself.  To attempt to destroy somebody who has not violated anybody's rights is evil and is the antithesis of what liberty is.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> As have I.   But the conservative knows that tolerance and acceptance are separate things.  To expect others to tolerate and allow my opinions, language, lifestyle that affects them in no way is a reasonable expectation.  To expect others to accept/approve/accommodate my opinions, language and/or lfestyle is not.
> 
> And to seek to punish me, destroy me, damage my business or livelihood because you don't like a word I used or don't like my attitude or convictions about something is not only the antithesis of liberty, but it is evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top paragraph needs a rewrite to make a coherent sentence but from what I gather you're not talking about "evil", or liberty, or politics.  You're talking about social mores, as expressed through the free market.  That's not legislation.
> 
> The reverse of what you're bemoaning would be to require consumers to buy things they don't want.  Good luck with that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is coherant, with a little punctuation, but to rephrase:   as a conservative/classical liberal, I see freedom as having the right to my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle that does not affect you in any way.  Tolerance does not require you to accept, endorse, appreciate, emulate, or respect my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle.  It only requires you to not interfere.
> 
> And I am not talking about social mores being evil.  What is evil is Citizen A intentionally trying to harm or punish or destroy Citizen B for no other reason than Citizen B uses words or expresses opinions or endorses a lifestyle that Citizen A does not like or accept.
> 
> I don't care whether a person is Republican, Democrat, a little green man from Mars, or what label he puts on himself.  To attempt to destroy somebody who has not violated anybody's rights is evil and is the antithesis of what liberty is.
Click to expand...


OK I agree with the revised, of course.  I think we're all good with that.

The second part, still not sure what you're getting at.  Can you give an example of "attempting to destroy"?


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The top paragraph needs a rewrite to make a coherent sentence but from what I gather you're not talking about "evil", or liberty, or politics.  You're talking about social mores, as expressed through the free market.  That's not legislation.
> 
> The reverse of what you're bemoaning would be to require consumers to buy things they don't want.  Good luck with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is coherant, with a little punctuation, but to rephrase:   as a conservative/classical liberal, I see freedom as having the right to my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle that does not affect you in any way.  Tolerance does not require you to accept, endorse, appreciate, emulate, or respect my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle.  It only requires you to not interfere.
> 
> And I am not talking about social mores being evil.  What is evil is Citizen A intentionally trying to harm or punish or destroy Citizen B for no other reason than Citizen B uses words or expresses opinions or endorses a lifestyle that Citizen A does not like or accept.
> 
> I don't care whether a person is Republican, Democrat, a little green man from Mars, or what label he puts on himself.  To attempt to destroy somebody who has not violated anybody's rights is evil and is the antithesis of what liberty is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK I agree with the revised, of course.  I think we're all good with that.
> 
> The second part, still not sure what you're getting at.  Can you give an example of "attempting to destroy"?
Click to expand...


I gave you three:
Rush Limbaugh
Chick fil a
Paula Deen


----------



## Trajan

what I see in this thread ,  appears to me at least to be the ole my shit don't stank syndrome and the lost art of separation&#8230;.. 

Now, someone&#8217;s opinion is not wrong in that it is an OPINION.  It seems that when you are argue a viewpoint you are arguing for your opinion, as in ideology and using what facts you may want to employ buttressing  why you think your view is, not so much superior but, more  valid in that debate(?).  

Facts that are made or refuted don&#8217;t seem to really mean much on the net, if someone bases an argument on what appears to be a false fact, ideology seems to take over&#8230;..if that persons ideology is stronger then their ability to parse a fact and/or honesty,  to say yea, &#8220; you&#8217;re right there&#8221; , separation is lost, the debate becomes; &#8220; you&#8217;re a lib or con DB and since libs/cons are ___________anyway, you&#8217;re wrong&#8221;. 

That dovetails  into the; &#8216;my crap don&#8217;t stank &#8216; side of the debate where in folks post examples of libs or cons making  remarks that are hurtful, pejorative etc.  a sign held at a rally becomes the mouthpiece of the entire group&#8230;..where really, examples  of dopes with signage from the &#8216;other side&#8217; exist but when  posted too, are now, all of a sudden not representative of that group, its only YOUR group that gets characterized by same. It cannot be both. 

And in the end,  what I see to is [that]  there doesn&#8217;t seem to be acceptance, hell, even recognition of or there exists  genuine, intellectual or heartfelt, moral or ethical objection(s) , that doesn&#8217;t get labeled as &#8216;hateful&#8217;. Simple examples, if you are for Obamacare you&#8217;re a statist Obamabot, if your opposed to gay _marriage_, you&#8217;re a homophobe.


----------



## Foxfyre

Trajan said:


> what I see in this thread ,  appears to me at least to be the ole my shit don't stank syndrome and the lost art of separation&#8230;..
> 
> Now, someone&#8217;s opinion is not wrong in that an OPINION.  It seems that when you are argue a viewpoint you are arguing for your opinion, as in ideology and using what facts you may want to employ buttressing  why you think your view is, not so much superior but, more  valid in that debate(?).
> 
> Facts that are made or refuted don&#8217;t seem to really mean much on the net, if someone bases an argument on what appears to be a false fact, ideology seems to take over&#8230;..if that persons ideology is stronger then their ability to parse a fact and/or honesty,  to say yea, &#8220; you&#8217;re right there&#8221; , separation is lost, the debate becomes; &#8220; you&#8217;re a lib or con DB and since libs/cons are ___________anyway, you&#8217;re wrong&#8221;.
> 
> That dovetails  into the; &#8216;my crap don&#8217;t stank &#8216; side of the debate where in folks post examples of libs or cons making  remarks that are hurtful, pejorative etc.  a sign held at a rally becomes the mouthpiece of the entire group&#8230;..where really, examples  of dopes with signage from the &#8216;other side&#8217; exist but when  posted too, are now, all of a sudden not representative of that group, its only YOUR group that gets characterized by same. It cannot be both.
> 
> And in the end,  what I see to is [that]  there doesn&#8217;t seem to be acceptance, hell, even recognition of or there exists  genuine, intellectual or heartfelt, moral or ethical objection(s) , that doesn&#8217;t get labeled as &#8216;hateful&#8217;. Simple examples, if you are for Obamacare you&#8217;re a statist Obamabot, if your opposed to gay _marriage_, you&#8217;re a homophobe.



It's worse than that Traj.

Just on the issue of gay rights alone:

In a recent prior argument on this thread, I expressed my conviction that people who want a Mayberry USA should be able to have that.  But that was immediately translated as somehow favoring DOMA and therefore was homophobic or extremist.

If I say that a modern conservative/classical liberal sees value in traditional marriage, that will immediately be translated as anti-gay marriage and/or homophobic and/or hateful.

If I point out that the presence of mostly traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education, that will also be labeled as anti-gay, homophobic, hateful, extremist.

From the more entrenched, more radical modern Left, there is no tolerance for any view other than the politically correct one of the current week, month, or year.  Which is one reason that modern American liberalism is often seen in such a negative light.


----------



## numan

Foxfyre said:


> ...as a conservative/classical liberal, I see freedom as having the right to my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle that does not affect you in any way.


And your last phrase is an escape hatch for evil big enough to drive a truck through.

In the complexity of modern society, it is almost impossible to do _anything_ that does not affect other people.

I will give you a concrete example. I live in a beautiful, scenic area. The housing in my neighborhood was designed and built in the more socially responsible 1950's. A great deal of thought and care went into building so as to give every house a view of the ocean and hills.

Recently, an executive of an oil company, no doubt paid more than he was worth, bought a house nearby, demolished it, and, by clever manipulation of construction and the zoning regulations (and, I suspect, by money passing under the table to the inspectors) he built a "monster house" which blocked off the ocean view of three houses, and reduced the value of these properties. My view was not affected, but I and my neighbors were disgusted by the arrogance and thoughtlessness of this interloping clod. We all took to calling his house the "view dam." As you may expect, we all gave him the cold shoulder, and he has since moved away, but the damage was done. And, to add insult to injury, the extra height of his construction served no useful purpose; it was not an extra floor, but pure, empty space -- no doubt meant to give an interior impression of lofty space. 

The "freedom" of this vain, vulgar cad very much affected three of my neighbors. He cannot be sued for the damage he did; people like him make the laws -- to suit their own convenience!

Examples like this can be multiplied by millions of times in a complex society -- and your antiquated, childish, ill thought-out notions of "freedom" 
collapse utterly in such a society.
.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is coherant, with a little punctuation, but to rephrase:   as a conservative/classical liberal, I see freedom as having the right to my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle that does not affect you in any way.  Tolerance does not require you to accept, endorse, appreciate, emulate, or respect my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle.  It only requires you to not interfere.
> 
> And I am not talking about social mores being evil.  What is evil is Citizen A intentionally trying to harm or punish or destroy Citizen B for no other reason than Citizen B uses words or expresses opinions or endorses a lifestyle that Citizen A does not like or accept.
> 
> I don't care whether a person is Republican, Democrat, a little green man from Mars, or what label he puts on himself.  To attempt to destroy somebody who has not violated anybody's rights is evil and is the antithesis of what liberty is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK I agree with the revised, of course.  I think we're all good with that.
> 
> The second part, still not sure what you're getting at.  Can you give an example of "attempting to destroy"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you three:
> Rush Limbaugh
> Chick fil a
> Paula Deen
Click to expand...


Sorry, I missed that part while I was away.
I'm not familiar with Chick-Fil-A; I know the Limblob story and read up on Paula Deen.  Neither of those are legislation or political issues.  In Deen's case she had a lawsuit flung on her which (presumably) resulted in a business decision, but that TV channel is well within its rights to decline to renew their own contract, are they not?

And then in Limblob's case if you're talking about the advertiser dynamic, from the consumer's standpoint again it's within the consumer's rights to make their purchases as they see fit, and from the advertisers' standpoint they're within their rights to run or not run ads as benefits their public image, are they not?

Who's being "destroyed" by any of this?

And to state the converse, on what basis would you force a consumer to buy, say, a Sleep Train product after they've decided not to because of its association with Limblob?

In any case you're still talking about social mores at the base of these energies, not politics.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Conservatives are too busy enjoying life to care about all the stupid stuff that is life and death to liberals. If we don't like a show we don't watch it. When a liberal is ordered not to like a show they try to drive it off the air


----------



## Foxfyre

numan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...as a conservative/classical liberal, I see freedom as having the right to my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle that does not affect you in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> And your last phrase is an escape hatch for evil big enough to drive a truck through.
> 
> In the complexity of modern society, it is almost impossible to do _anything_ that does not affect other people.
> 
> I will give you a concrete example. I live in a beautiful, scenic area. The housing in my neighborhood was designed and built in the more socially responsible 1950's. A great deal of thought and care went into building so as to give every house a view of the ocean and hills.
> 
> Recently, an executive of an oil company, no doubt paid more than he was worth, bought a house nearby, demolished it, and, by clever manipulation of construction and the zoning regulations (and, I suspect, by money passing under the table to the inspectors) he built a "monster house" which blocked off the ocean view of three houses, and reduced the value of these properties. My view was not affected, but I and my neighbors were disgusted by the arrogance and thoughtlessness of this interloping clod. We all took to calling his house the "view dam." As you may expect, we all gave him the cold shoulder, and he has since moved away, but the damage was done. And, to add insult to injury, the extra height of his construction served no useful purpose; it was not an extra floor, but pure, empty space -- no doubt meant to give an interior impression of lofty space.
> 
> The "freedom" of this vain, vulgar cad very much affected three of my neighbors. He cannot be sued for the damage he did; people like him make the laws -- to suit their own convenience!
> 
> Examples like this can be multiplied by millions of times in a complex society -- and your antiquated, childish, ill thought-out notions of "freedom"
> collapse utterly in such a society.
> .
Click to expand...


This is a case where clearly the actions of the one affected the others.  It could have been avoided with a well thought out social contract specifying the kinds of zoning, construction, etc. that would benefit all.

But how does my using the 'N" word years ago affect you in any way?  If you are offended, nobody makes you do business with me or buy any product I endorse.

How does my support of traditional marriage as a worthy goal for people injure you or diminish your enjoyment of life or require anything whatsoever or take anything away from you? 

How does a radio talk show host referring to a woman who is paid to have sex a 'slut' damage you in any way?  If you find it morally offensive, can you not simply turn off the radio or change the station?   If you find the word itself offensive, then petition the station or the FCC to outlaw it along with a number of other words that are not allowed on the public airways.   But you expect others to not interfere with your unalienable right to your own thoughts, words, and opinions.  Tolerance requires that you allow others the same.

Tolerance is allowing other people to be who they are as long as they stay out of our faces and our business.  It is not a requirement to endorse or accept who they are.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...as a conservative/classical liberal, I see freedom as having the right to my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle that does not affect you in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> And your last phrase is an escape hatch for evil big enough to drive a truck through.
> 
> In the complexity of modern society, it is almost impossible to do _anything_ that does not affect other people.
> 
> I will give you a concrete example. I live in a beautiful, scenic area. The housing in my neighborhood was designed and built in the more socially responsible 1950's. A great deal of thought and care went into building so as to give every house a view of the ocean and hills.
> 
> Recently, an executive of an oil company, no doubt paid more than he was worth, bought a house nearby, demolished it, and, by clever manipulation of construction and the zoning regulations (and, I suspect, by money passing under the table to the inspectors) he built a "monster house" which blocked off the ocean view of three houses, and reduced the value of these properties. My view was not affected, but I and my neighbors were disgusted by the arrogance and thoughtlessness of this interloping clod. We all took to calling his house the "view dam." As you may expect, we all gave him the cold shoulder, and he has since moved away, but the damage was done. And, to add insult to injury, the extra height of his construction served no useful purpose; it was not an extra floor, but pure, empty space -- no doubt meant to give an interior impression of lofty space.
> 
> The "freedom" of this vain, vulgar cad very much affected three of my neighbors. He cannot be sued for the damage he did; people like him make the laws -- to suit their own convenience!
> 
> Examples like this can be multiplied by millions of times in a complex society -- and your antiquated, childish, ill thought-out notions of "freedom"
> collapse utterly in such a society.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a case where clearly the actions of the one affected the others.  It could have been avoided with a well thought out social contract specifying the kinds of zoning, construction, etc. that would benefit all.
> 
> But how does my using the 'N" word years ago affect you in any way?  If you are offended, nobody makes you do business with me or buy any product I endorse.
> 
> How does my support of traditional marriage as a worthy goal for people injure you or diminish your enjoyment of life or require anything whatsoever or take anything away from you?
> 
> How does a radio talk show host referring to a woman who is paid to have sex a 'slut' damage you in any way?  If you find it morally offensive, can you not simply turn off the radio or change the station?   If you find the word itself offensive, then petition the station or the FCC to outlaw it along with a number of other words that are not allowed on the public airways.   But you expect others to not interfere with your unalienable right to your own thoughts, words, and opinions.  Tolerance requires that you allow others the same.
> 
> Tolerance is allowing other people to be who they are as long as they stay out of our faces and our business.  It is not a requirement to endorse or accept who they are.
Click to expand...


This takes the cake of self centered narcissism. Liberals should be afforded first amendment right, just as long as they remain SILENT and don't USE those rights, otherwise they are intolerant. 

Did I miss anything FF???

Oh yea I did. NEITHER Deen or Limbaugh's problems were brought about by liberals. Their problems are with corporations who either advertize or air their product.

And tell me FF, did anyone force either one to say what they said? Oh, that's right, personal responsibility only applies when liberals are at fault. Ask Howard Dean... Yeah!!!


----------



## Trajan

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your last phrase is an escape hatch for evil big enough to drive a truck through.
> 
> In the complexity of modern society, it is almost impossible to do _anything_ that does not affect other people.
> 
> I will give you a concrete example. I live in a beautiful, scenic area. The housing in my neighborhood was designed and built in the more socially responsible 1950's. A great deal of thought and care went into building so as to give every house a view of the ocean and hills.
> 
> Recently, an executive of an oil company, no doubt paid more than he was worth, bought a house nearby, demolished it, and, by clever manipulation of construction and the zoning regulations (and, I suspect, by money passing under the table to the inspectors) he built a "monster house" which blocked off the ocean view of three houses, and reduced the value of these properties. My view was not affected, but I and my neighbors were disgusted by the arrogance and thoughtlessness of this interloping clod. We all took to calling his house the "view dam." As you may expect, we all gave him the cold shoulder, and he has since moved away, but the damage was done. And, to add insult to injury, the extra height of his construction served no useful purpose; it was not an extra floor, but pure, empty space -- no doubt meant to give an interior impression of lofty space.
> 
> The "freedom" of this vain, vulgar cad very much affected three of my neighbors. He cannot be sued for the damage he did; people like him make the laws -- to suit their own convenience!
> 
> Examples like this can be multiplied by millions of times in a complex society -- and your antiquated, childish, ill thought-out notions of "freedom"
> collapse utterly in such a society.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a case where clearly the actions of the one affected the others.  It could have been avoided with a well thought out social contract specifying the kinds of zoning, construction, etc. that would benefit all.
> 
> But how does my using the 'N" word years ago affect you in any way?  If you are offended, nobody makes you do business with me or buy any product I endorse.
> 
> How does my support of traditional marriage as a worthy goal for people injure you or diminish your enjoyment of life or require anything whatsoever or take anything away from you?
> 
> How does a radio talk show host referring to a woman who is paid to have sex a 'slut' damage you in any way?  If you find it morally offensive, can you not simply turn off the radio or change the station?   If you find the word itself offensive, then petition the station or the FCC to outlaw it along with a number of other words that are not allowed on the public airways.   But you expect others to not interfere with your unalienable right to your own thoughts, words, and opinions.  Tolerance requires that you allow others the same.
> 
> Tolerance is allowing other people to be who they are as long as they stay out of our faces and our business.  It is not a requirement to endorse or accept who they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This takes the cake of self centered narcissism. Liberals should be afforded first amendment right, just as long as they remain SILENT and don't USE those rights, otherwise they are intolerant.
> 
> Did I miss anything FF???
> 
> Oh yea I did. NEITHER Deen or Limbaugh's problems were brought about by liberals. Their problems are with corporations who either advertize or air their product.
> 
> And tell me FF, did anyone force either one to say what they said? Oh, that's right, personal responsibility only applies when liberals are at fault. Ask Howard Dean... Yeah!!!
Click to expand...


thats the second time you've said basically the something, where is she saying that you need to keep silent? 


and I would wager your idea of rights and mine differ....


----------



## Trajan

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK I agree with the revised, of course.  I think we're all good with that.
> 
> The second part, still not sure what you're getting at.  Can you give an example of "attempting to destroy"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you three:
> Rush Limbaugh
> Chick fil a
> Paula Deen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I missed that part while I was away.
> I'm not familiar with Chick-Fil-A; I know the Limblob story and read up on Paula Deen.  Neither of those are legislation or political issues.  In Deen's case she had a lawsuit flung on her which (presumably) resulted in a business decision, but that TV channel is well within its rights to decline to renew their own contract, are they not?
> 
> And then in Limblob's case if you're talking about the advertiser dynamic, from the consumer's standpoint again it's within the consumer's rights to make their purchases as they see fit, and from the advertisers' standpoint they're within their rights to run or not run ads as benefits their public image, are they not?
> 
> Who's being "destroyed" by any of this?
> 
> And to state the converse, on what basis would you force a consumer to buy, say, a Sleep Train product after they've decided not to because of its association with Limblob?
> 
> In any case you're still talking about social mores at the base of these energies, not politics.
Click to expand...


I _think _I see what FF is saying the operative word think, as in my opinion. An example of where I think shes coming from;

a deputy general counsel for corporate law at Bank of America had over 10 bus-loads of picketers show at his home, his personal residence.......waving signs,  chanting etc. 



do you think that that was a legitimate venue to protest? (and I don't think an abortion doctors home is legitimate either)


bear with me


----------



## Bfgrn

Trajan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a case where clearly the actions of the one affected the others.  It could have been avoided with a well thought out social contract specifying the kinds of zoning, construction, etc. that would benefit all.
> 
> But how does my using the 'N" word years ago affect you in any way?  If you are offended, nobody makes you do business with me or buy any product I endorse.
> 
> How does my support of traditional marriage as a worthy goal for people injure you or diminish your enjoyment of life or require anything whatsoever or take anything away from you?
> 
> How does a radio talk show host referring to a woman who is paid to have sex a 'slut' damage you in any way?  If you find it morally offensive, can you not simply turn off the radio or change the station?   If you find the word itself offensive, then petition the station or the FCC to outlaw it along with a number of other words that are not allowed on the public airways.   But you expect others to not interfere with your unalienable right to your own thoughts, words, and opinions.  Tolerance requires that you allow others the same.
> 
> Tolerance is allowing other people to be who they are as long as they stay out of our faces and our business.  It is not a requirement to endorse or accept who they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This takes the cake of self centered narcissism. Liberals should be afforded first amendment right, just as long as they remain SILENT and don't USE those rights, otherwise they are intolerant.
> 
> Did I miss anything FF???
> 
> Oh yea I did. NEITHER Deen or Limbaugh's problems were brought about by liberals. Their problems are with corporations who either advertize or air their product.
> 
> And tell me FF, did anyone force either one to say what they said? Oh, that's right, personal responsibility only applies when liberals are at fault. Ask Howard Dean... Yeah!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thats the second time you've said basically the something, where is she saying that you need to keep silent?
> 
> 
> and I would wager your idea of rights and mine differ....
Click to expand...


Try to follow along, OK? FF is blaming liberals for Deen and Limbaugh's problems. Their problems have nothing at all to do with liberals. It is corporate America who is pulling sponsorships or not airing their product.

This is NOT rocket science Trajan.


----------



## Trajan

Bfgrn said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This takes the cake of self centered narcissism. Liberals should be afforded first amendment right, just as long as they remain SILENT and don't USE those rights, otherwise they are intolerant.
> 
> Did I miss anything FF???
> 
> Oh yea I did. NEITHER Deen or Limbaugh's problems were brought about by liberals. Their problems are with corporations who either advertize or air their product.
> 
> And tell me FF, did anyone force either one to say what they said? Oh, that's right, personal responsibility only applies when liberals are at fault. Ask Howard Dean... Yeah!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats the second time you've said basically the something, where is she saying that you need to keep silent?
> 
> 
> and I would wager your idea of rights and mine differ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to follow along, OK? FF is blaming liberals for Deen and Limbaugh's problems. Their problems have nothing at all to do with liberals. It is corporate America who is pulling sponsorships or not airing their product.
> 
> This is NOT rocket science Trajan.
Click to expand...


Well, I will, though provoked pass on making any personal remarks. 


I will say it is my opinion, The operative word being opinion, that I think you are not comprehending or translating her words,  uhm....equitably, and I think, that there is not adequate employment of critical thinking applied as to how point a takes you to b as in corporate sponsorship etc. .....as in cause, effect etc.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> News flash Joe, this is NOT about Republicans or Democrats.  There are liberal and conservative Republicans; liberal and conservative Democrats.  What is conservative/classical liberal as it is understood in America today is an idea, a concept, a conviction that in order to be free, we must first have our rights secured, and then we must be able to live our lives as we choose without interference from a central government authority.
> 
> The Founders risked all that they owned, their blood, their treasure, their loved ones, their very lives to free us from monarchs, popes, or other authorities who would assign us the rights we would have, the beliefs we were required to profess, the lifestyle we would live.
> 
> So tolerance is a two way street.  To deny another his intolerance, short of denying unalienable rights, is in itself a freedom robbing intolerance.   There must be as much freedom to scorn and distrust the religious, for example, as there must be freedom to scorn and distrust the Atheist.  And neither should be able to require the other to adopt or respect his/her point of view, much less adopt it.
> 
> The conservative may abhor another's prejudices, but knows that freedom requires us to not interfere with the other person's prejudices except when they deny others their unalienable rights.  The Westboro Baptists, for instance, are held in utter contempt, but will be left alone in their narrow minded hatefulness.  They will be resisted, however, when they attempt to force that narrow minded hatefulness on others.
> 
> But even as they too condemn a group like the Westboro Baptist, the modern American liberal too often demands that others accept their version of virtue or morality.  Thus they see no problem with attempting to destroy the livelihood and peace of a Rush Limbaugh or a Chick fil a or a Paula Deen when such people fail to measure up to the liberal's version of what morality and/or virtue is.   There is no live and let live--no tolerance--no understanding of what real liberty is--in most of the modern liberals' world.  And to make matters worse the modern day liberal is rarely consistent.  They are excessively selective in who will be forced to conform or who will punished if they do not, and reserve their contempt and coercion for those with whom they do not feel ideologically compatible.
> 
> And for those of us conservatives/classical liberals who see it as a dangerous thing for government to dictate to us how we must live our lives, it is only a natural consequence that we would hold in contempt a liberalism that would also dictate to us how we must think, how we must believe, how we must speak, how we must live our lives.  The contempt is not for what the liberal believes.  The contempt is for what the liberal would force upon everybody else by whatever means deemed necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A little tolerance for my lifestyle is all I've ever asked...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As have I.   But the conservative knows that tolerance and acceptance are separate things.  To expect others to tolerate and allow my opinions, language, lifestyle that affects them in no way is a reasonable expectation.  To expect others to accept/approve/accommodate my opinions, language and/or lfestyle is not.
> 
> And to seek to punish me, destroy me, damage my business or livelihood because you don't like a word I used or don't like my attitude or convictions about something is not only the antithesis of liberty, but it is evil.
Click to expand...


When have *I* ever threatened you or yours?

Step one is to understand that liberal opinions are just as valid as conservative opinions and, like you said, ignorant, intolerant, extremist assholes occupy both sides of the aisle.

Extremism and intolerance remain the problem, not you and I.


----------



## koshergrl

I wouldn't be so convicted that you aren't the problem, joe. 

Everything is not always equal, and there are certain political/idealogical concepts that lend themselves more readily to brutality and dishonesty. And just because you or this person or that think that such an ideology is fine does not make it fine, nor does it compel us to pretend it is.

There is right and wrong. And regardless of what you believe, there is always the chance that you are the one that is wrong. Everybody isn't right all the time.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Foxfyre said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> what I see in this thread ,  appears to me at least to be the ole my shit don't stank syndrome and the lost art of separation&#8230;..
> 
> Now, someone&#8217;s opinion is not wrong in that an OPINION.  It seems that when you are argue a viewpoint you are arguing for your opinion, as in ideology and using what facts you may want to employ buttressing  why you think your view is, not so much superior but, more  valid in that debate(?).
> 
> Facts that are made or refuted don&#8217;t seem to really mean much on the net, if someone bases an argument on what appears to be a false fact, ideology seems to take over&#8230;..if that persons ideology is stronger then their ability to parse a fact and/or honesty,  to say yea, &#8220; you&#8217;re right there&#8221; , separation is lost, the debate becomes; &#8220; you&#8217;re a lib or con DB and since libs/cons are ___________anyway, you&#8217;re wrong&#8221;.
> 
> That dovetails  into the; &#8216;my crap don&#8217;t stank &#8216; side of the debate where in folks post examples of libs or cons making  remarks that are hurtful, pejorative etc.  a sign held at a rally becomes the mouthpiece of the entire group&#8230;..where really, examples  of dopes with signage from the &#8216;other side&#8217; exist but when  posted too, are now, all of a sudden not representative of that group, its only YOUR group that gets characterized by same. It cannot be both.
> 
> And in the end,  what I see to is [that]  there doesn&#8217;t seem to be acceptance, hell, even recognition of or there exists  genuine, intellectual or heartfelt, moral or ethical objection(s) , that doesn&#8217;t get labeled as &#8216;hateful&#8217;. Simple examples, if you are for Obamacare you&#8217;re a statist Obamabot, if your opposed to gay _marriage_, you&#8217;re a homophobe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's worse than that Traj.
> 
> Just on the issue of gay rights alone:
> 
> In a recent prior argument on this thread, I expressed my conviction that people who want a Mayberry USA should be able to have that.  But that was immediately translated as somehow favoring DOMA and therefore was homophobic or extremist.
> 
> If I say that a modern conservative/classical liberal sees value in traditional marriage, that will immediately be translated as anti-gay marriage and/or homophobic and/or hateful.
> 
> If I point out that the presence of mostly traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education, that will also be labeled as anti-gay, homophobic, hateful, extremist.
> 
> From the more entrenched, more radical modern Left, there is no tolerance for any view other than the politically correct one of the current week, month, or year.  Which is one reason that modern American liberalism is often seen in such a negative light.
Click to expand...


So a town should be able to run all the gays out on a rail if 51% vote for it?
​Why not a state? 

How about the whole country?  

That's what was behind DOMA, a shrinking majority foisting their bedroom morals on the rest of the country through national legislation.

Shouldn't _protecting_ the minorities be a role for government?

Like you said... opinions are opinions and policy is policy.


----------



## Beachboy

Having been both a conservative and a liberal, I can tell you how to beat either one in a debate.  With conservatives just present fact/links.  All they have to support their positions are Fox News and a cadre of conservative organizations.  Challenge their facts/links/*sources* and you win every time.

Basically, liberals believe "Everything for everyone."  A nice easy political opinion that appeals to the masses.  What they won't talk about when the "rubber meets the road" is the limitations on natural resources.  There just is not enough to go around.  The easiest subject to nail them on is "overpopulation and how to solve it."  When they realize that some form of international birth control is the only alternative, the collapse like a cheap tent.  They can not make decisions about who lives, and who dies, and leaving it up to the laws of nature negates their arguments.  

At least conservatives get credit for making a decision even when all the choices are bad.  What good is discussion if in the end you can not make a decision?


----------



## AVG-JOE

koshergrl said:


> I wouldn't be so convicted that you aren't the problem, joe.
> 
> Everything is not always equal, and there are certain political/idealogical concepts that lend themselves more readily to brutality and dishonesty. And just because you or this person or that think that such an ideology is fine does not make it fine, nor does it compel us to pretend it is.
> 
> There is right and wrong. And regardless of what you believe, there is always the chance that you are the one that is wrong. Everybody isn't right all the time.



Unless you can point to a standing CIVIL Law I have broken, you have NOTHING but your opinion concerning my sins.

Right and wrong are MEANINGLESS opinions outside of Civil Law.  Your opinion of me is irrelevant.


----------



## koshergrl

Often, the laws are the problem. And you are the problem for following them, or proposing them.

There is right and wrong. Legality is not the same as "right".


----------



## AVG-JOE

Wrong and right are subjective outside of Civil Law.  That's why Civil Law MUST trump Religious Law whenever the two conflict.

Any indications of right and wrong outside of Civil Law are irrelevant, including the ancient religious stories we are so carefully tap-dancing around.  Anything else opens the door to the intolerance of things like Sharia Law or worse.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> what I see in this thread ,  appears to me at least to be the ole my shit don't stank syndrome and the lost art of separation..
> 
> Now, someones opinion is not wrong in that an OPINION.  It seems that when you are argue a viewpoint you are arguing for your opinion, as in ideology and using what facts you may want to employ buttressing  why you think your view is, not so much superior but, more  valid in that debate(?).
> 
> Facts that are made or refuted dont seem to really mean much on the net, if someone bases an argument on what appears to be a false fact, ideology seems to take over..if that persons ideology is stronger then their ability to parse a fact and/or honesty,  to say yea,  youre right there , separation is lost, the debate becomes;  youre a lib or con DB and since libs/cons are ___________anyway, youre wrong.
> 
> That dovetails  into the; my crap dont stank  side of the debate where in folks post examples of libs or cons making  remarks that are hurtful, pejorative etc.  a sign held at a rally becomes the mouthpiece of the entire group..where really, examples  of dopes with signage from the other side exist but when  posted too, are now, all of a sudden not representative of that group, its only YOUR group that gets characterized by same. It cannot be both.
> 
> And in the end,  what I see to is [that]  there doesnt seem to be acceptance, hell, even recognition of or there exists  genuine, intellectual or heartfelt, moral or ethical objection(s) , that doesnt get labeled as hateful. Simple examples, if you are for Obamacare youre a statist Obamabot, if your opposed to gay _marriage_, youre a homophobe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's worse than that Traj.
> 
> Just on the issue of gay rights alone:
> 
> In a recent prior argument on this thread, I expressed my conviction that people who want a Mayberry USA should be able to have that.  But that was immediately translated as somehow favoring DOMA and therefore was homophobic or extremist.
> 
> If I say that a modern conservative/classical liberal sees value in traditional marriage, that will immediately be translated as anti-gay marriage and/or homophobic and/or hateful.
> 
> *If I point out that the presence of mostly traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education*, that will also be labeled as anti-gay, homophobic, hateful, extremist.
> 
> From the more entrenched, more radical modern Left, there is no tolerance for any view other than the politically correct one of the current week, month, or year.  Which is one reason that modern American liberalism is often seen in such a negative light.
Click to expand...


Anything to back up your claim FF, or is that just emotions?


----------



## Pogo

Trajan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you three:
> Rush Limbaugh
> Chick fil a
> Paula Deen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I missed that part while I was away.
> I'm not familiar with Chick-Fil-A; I know the Limblob story and read up on Paula Deen.  Neither of those are legislation or political issues.  In Deen's case she had a lawsuit flung on her which (presumably) resulted in a business decision, but that TV channel is well within its rights to decline to renew their own contract, are they not?
> 
> And then in Limblob's case if you're talking about the advertiser dynamic, from the consumer's standpoint again it's within the consumer's rights to make their purchases as they see fit, and from the advertisers' standpoint they're within their rights to run or not run ads as benefits their public image, are they not?
> 
> Who's being "destroyed" by any of this?
> 
> And to state the converse, on what basis would you force a consumer to buy, say, a Sleep Train product after they've decided not to because of its association with Limblob?
> 
> In any case you're still talking about social mores at the base of these energies, not politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I _think _I see what FF is saying the operative word think, as in my opinion. An example of where I think shes coming from;
> 
> a deputy general counsel for corporate law at Bank of America had over 10 bus-loads of picketers show at his home, his personal residence.......waving signs,  chanting etc.
> 
> do you think that that was a legitimate venue to protest? (and I don't think an abortion doctors home is legitimate either)
> 
> bear with me
Click to expand...


Well, you lost me with that one. Bank of America?  Abortion doctor?  

As for Foxy's post, on which she didn't elaborate, where she speaks presumably of the Limbaugh boycott it seems to me boycotts (and buycotts) are voluntary exercises of consumer choice; if I elect to avoid Wal-Mart because of my perceptions of it and she elects to shop there because of hers, then both of us have exercised a choice, and neither one was forced.  I'm left to infer that Foxy sees only one of those choices as allowable, which ultimately sounds like whining that a mass of people made choice A, where she would have chosen B.  But hey, you're outvoted. 

As noted before I'm not familiar with the Chick-Fil-A story but they don't look "destroyed" in my travels and neither does Limbaugh.

Boycotts almost never work anyway.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Foxfyre said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> what I see in this thread ,  appears to me at least to be the ole my shit don't stank syndrome and the lost art of separation..
> 
> Now, someones opinion is not wrong in that an OPINION.  It seems that when you are argue a viewpoint you are arguing for your opinion, as in ideology and using what facts you may want to employ buttressing  why you think your view is, not so much superior but, more  valid in that debate(?).
> 
> Facts that are made or refuted dont seem to really mean much on the net, if someone bases an argument on what appears to be a false fact, ideology seems to take over..if that persons ideology is stronger then their ability to parse a fact and/or honesty,  to say yea,  youre right there , separation is lost, the debate becomes;  youre a lib or con DB and since libs/cons are ___________anyway, youre wrong.
> 
> That dovetails  into the; my crap dont stank  side of the debate where in folks post examples of libs or cons making  remarks that are hurtful, pejorative etc.  a sign held at a rally becomes the mouthpiece of the entire group..where really, examples  of dopes with signage from the other side exist but when  posted too, are now, all of a sudden not representative of that group, its only YOUR group that gets characterized by same. It cannot be both.
> 
> And in the end,  what I see to is [that]  there doesnt seem to be acceptance, hell, even recognition of or there exists  genuine, intellectual or heartfelt, moral or ethical objection(s) , that doesnt get labeled as hateful. Simple examples, if you are for Obamacare youre a statist Obamabot, if your opposed to gay _marriage_, youre a homophobe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's worse than that Traj.
> 
> Just on the issue of gay rights alone:
> 
> In a recent prior argument on this thread, I expressed my conviction that people who want a Mayberry USA should be able to have that.  But that was immediately translated as somehow favoring DOMA and therefore was homophobic or extremist.
> 
> If I say that a modern conservative/classical liberal sees value in traditional marriage, that will immediately be translated as anti-gay marriage and/or homophobic and/or hateful.
> 
> If I point out that the presence of mostly traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education, that will also be labeled as anti-gay, homophobic, hateful, extremist.
> 
> From the more entrenched, more radical modern Left, there is no tolerance for any view other than the politically correct one of the current week, month, or year.  Which is one reason that modern American liberalism is often seen in such a negative light.
Click to expand...


And how exactly are conservatives going to achieve their Mayberry USA? 

The only logical extrapolation is that there will be laws and policies in place designed to disadvantage those who dont conform, in clear violation of 14th Amendment jurisprudence.  

Its also a fallacy that only a conservative community of traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education. 

Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples expressing the liberal values of diversity and inclusiveness are just as capable of achieving those goals, if not more so  indeed, America is always at its greatest and most successful when all are allowed to participate and contribute, not just those who adhere to conservative concepts.


----------



## AVG-JOE

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> what I see in this thread ,  appears to me at least to be the ole my shit don't stank syndrome and the lost art of separation&#8230;..
> 
> Now, someone&#8217;s opinion is not wrong in that an OPINION.  It seems that when you are argue a viewpoint you are arguing for your opinion, as in ideology and using what facts you may want to employ buttressing  why you think your view is, not so much superior but, more  valid in that debate(?).
> 
> Facts that are made or refuted don&#8217;t seem to really mean much on the net, if someone bases an argument on what appears to be a false fact, ideology seems to take over&#8230;..if that persons ideology is stronger then their ability to parse a fact and/or honesty,  to say yea, &#8220; you&#8217;re right there&#8221; , separation is lost, the debate becomes; &#8220; you&#8217;re a lib or con DB and since libs/cons are ___________anyway, you&#8217;re wrong&#8221;.
> 
> That dovetails  into the; &#8216;my crap don&#8217;t stank &#8216; side of the debate where in folks post examples of libs or cons making  remarks that are hurtful, pejorative etc.  a sign held at a rally becomes the mouthpiece of the entire group&#8230;..where really, examples  of dopes with signage from the &#8216;other side&#8217; exist but when  posted too, are now, all of a sudden not representative of that group, its only YOUR group that gets characterized by same. It cannot be both.
> 
> And in the end,  what I see to is [that]  there doesn&#8217;t seem to be acceptance, hell, even recognition of or there exists  genuine, intellectual or heartfelt, moral or ethical objection(s) , that doesn&#8217;t get labeled as &#8216;hateful&#8217;. Simple examples, if you are for Obamacare you&#8217;re a statist Obamabot, if your opposed to gay _marriage_, you&#8217;re a homophobe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's worse than that Traj.
> 
> Just on the issue of gay rights alone:
> 
> In a recent prior argument on this thread, I expressed my conviction that people who want a Mayberry USA should be able to have that.  But that was immediately translated as somehow favoring DOMA and therefore was homophobic or extremist.
> 
> If I say that a modern conservative/classical liberal sees value in traditional marriage, that will immediately be translated as anti-gay marriage and/or homophobic and/or hateful.
> 
> If I point out that the presence of mostly traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education, that will also be labeled as anti-gay, homophobic, hateful, extremist.
> 
> From the more entrenched, more radical modern Left, there is no tolerance for any view other than the politically correct one of the current week, month, or year.  Which is one reason that modern American liberalism is often seen in such a negative light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how exactly are conservatives going to achieve their &#8216;Mayberry USA&#8217;?
> 
> The only logical extrapolation is that there will be laws and policies in place designed to disadvantage those who don&#8217;t &#8216;conform,&#8217; in clear violation of 14th Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> It&#8217;s also a fallacy that only a &#8216;conservative community&#8217; of traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education.
> 
> Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples expressing the liberal values of diversity and inclusiveness are just as capable of achieving those goals, if not more so &#8211;* indeed, America is always at its greatest and most successful when all are allowed to participate and contribute, not just those who adhere to &#8216;conservative concepts.'*
Click to expand...




Would WWII have looked any different if the disenfranchised had refused to participate?  Nobody would have blamed them a bit, all things considered.


----------



## Unkotare

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples expressing the liberal values of diversity and inclusiveness are just as capable of achieving those goals,





Who told you those were exclusively "liberal values"? And what makes you think that "Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples" can't be as conservative as any other?


----------



## Pogo

Unkotare said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples expressing the liberal values of diversity and inclusiveness are just as capable of achieving those goals,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you those were exclusively "liberal values"? And what makes you think that "Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples" can't be as conservative as any other?
Click to expand...


Of course they're "Liberal" values in the political sense.  It goes back to the Liberal tenet of "all men are created equal", which, again, proffered the idea of classless society as opposed to a caste system of aristocracy versus commoners.  And again, in that sense, being what this country is founded on, we are all Liberals.

There may be a danger in tossing the word "liberal" around as a _social _value, as opposed to so-called "conservative" social values, in the endless quest to polarize the populace into a dichotomy of two camps permanently at war.  That is IMHO another fallout of these misleading attempts to redefine the word "Liberal" into something it isn't.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> :sigh: Foxy when are you gonna learn some political science... you insist on conflating leftism with liberalism and then turn around and call them "self-described liberals".  Define "self".
> 
> 
> You know what, I think I'm going to start calling hamburgers "ocelots"... self-described of course.



Pogo, we've been through this.

There is nothing even remotely "liberal" about you. You espouse positions in this forum that consistently seek to curtail individual liberty, particularly in regard to 1st and 2nd amendment liberty. You constantly promote the authoritarian left, defending petty despots like Obama and Holder in virtually every case.

You are a leftist Pogo, not a liberal.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Saigon said:


> Why do people hate Liberals?



Because we're so awesome.


----------



## Uncensored2008

HUGGY said:


> *Why do people hate Liberals? *
> 
> People don't hate liberals.  Those that hate liberals are not people.  They are zombies.  They are the walking dead.  They are those that hate America.  Our founding fathers were liberals by thier own definition.  The haters in our country are no different than the "good Germans" that rose thier arms and saluted Hitler.  No different at all.  We suffer these zombie fools at a great cost.



Of course. Rev. Jim - oh how you dream of forced labor camps to put these miscreants in, until they are reeducated in the truth and light of Obamunism...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wolfsister77 said:


> Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.
> 
> They are a Conservative think tank.



A<>B

Heritage is an excellent source of information - particularly in regard to leftists/progressives.


----------



## Uncensored2008

AVG-JOE said:


> How can someone possibly show how someone else or an organization got an *opinion* wrong?
> 
> Step one is to admit that liberal opinion is JUST as valid as conservative opinion.
> Step two is to accept the election results and move on.



The problem is that what is passed off as "liberal" opinion is in fact, leftist/progressive opinion.

The fact that the left will not honestly present themselves as what they are, is indicative that the message is not nearly as valid as you claim.


----------



## Unkotare

Pogo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples expressing the liberal values of diversity and inclusiveness are just as capable of achieving those goals,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you those were exclusively "liberal values"? And what makes you think that "Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples" can't be as conservative as any other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they're "Liberal" values in the political sense.
Click to expand...



Only in the "political sense" that certain people misuse the terms for political purposes.


----------



## Unkotare

Pogo said:


> It goes back to the Liberal tenet of "all men are created equal", which, again, proffered the idea of classless society as opposed to a caste system of aristocracy versus commoners.





And yet "liberals" constantly attempt to fabricate false "class warfare" for cynical political purposes.


----------



## RKMBrown

AVG-JOE said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, Foxfyre.  With the exception of Clinton signing it for compromise, and a couple of conservative blue-dogs on the left voting for it, DOMA belongs to the Republicans and the Republicans are the party of the conservatives.
> 
> Extremist Conservatives are just as interested in pushing their agenda from the top down as extremist Progressives.
> 
> The problem is extremism, exclusion and intolerance.  I so look forward to the day when reasonable Conservatives are as incensed by the extremism and intolerance in their own party as they are by the intolerant whackos on the left.
> 
> 
> 
> You are FOS.  Anti-Gay is the hate and fear felt by the anti-gay crowd.  Just because the democrats switch their view on gays every year does not give them the credit for being pro-gay.  That the is dumbest opinion I've ever read on this board. Most conservatives did not like Romney.  Romney was anti-gay rights... Hated him for that and many other reasons.  Romney was a progressive liberal posing as a republican.  I'm a constitutional conservative christian heterosexual and did not vote for Romney.  Pull my finger jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And right on schedule... Cue the intolerant conservative red-neck.
> ​
Click to expand...


Let me get this straight.  Me being tolerant of gays makes me an intolerant conservative red-neck.  This because I'm intolerant of your intolerance for gays... I see.  ROFL you must be a liberal your logic is flawless.


----------



## RKMBrown

Trajan said:


> And in the end,  what I see to is [that]  there doesnt seem to be acceptance, hell, even recognition of or there exists  genuine, intellectual or heartfelt, moral or ethical objection(s) , that doesnt get labeled as hateful. Simple examples, if you are for Obamacare youre a statist Obamabot, if your opposed to gay _marriage_, youre a homophobe.



Even simpler example, if you are opposed to letting blacks marry whites, sit anywhere they want on the bus, drink out of the white water fountains, etc. you're a racist.  

I don't think I would consider Obamabot a hateful label.  I think one of the issues is that some people were brought up and/or live in an area where certain language is the norm, and others not so much.  For example, I've known some New Yorkers that curse like a sailor, and don't mean anything bad by it. 

FYI I used to be in your camp, of opposing gay marriage, I used to think and argue that they should be happy with civil unions.  As with the racist views that I learned as a kid, and then overcame, I have also overcome my homophobic views.


----------



## HUGGY

Uncensored2008 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why do people hate Liberals? *
> 
> People don't hate liberals.  Those that hate liberals are not people.  They are zombies.  They are the walking dead.  They are those that hate America.  Our founding fathers were liberals by thier own definition.  The haters in our country are no different than the "good Germans" that rose thier arms and saluted Hitler.  No different at all.  We suffer these zombie fools at a great cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. Rev. Jim - oh how you dream of forced labor camps to put these miscreants in, until they are reeducated in the truth and light of Obamunism...
Click to expand...


You think about Obama a hell of a lot more than I do.  You and those like you are still so butt hurt that a negro occupies the white house that you are still willing and eager to destroy America stuck in your snit fit if it has any chance of anyone believing everything and anything negative that occurs is the direct result and fault of the sitting African American non citizen muslim president.  

The people in government that you adore and assign no responsibility to do thier jobs have a lot more to do with what happens in this country.  

It must be nice being you that you have a ready made whipping boy to blame for all of your concerns with our so called leaders.

Piss on you and your heros.  I could name a dozen elected representatives that need die of a virulent and speedy form of aides before I would be concerned with the president's performance.


----------



## Uncensored2008

HUGGY said:


> You think about Obama a hell of a lot more than I do.  You and those like you are still so butt hurt that a negro occupies the white house that you are still willing and eager to destroy America stuck in your snit fit if it has any chance of anyone believing everything and anything negative that occurs is the direct result and fault of the sitting African American non citizen muslim president.



Oh yes, we would be all into creation of a fascist medical system, the spying on the American people, open corruption in the DOJ, selling guns to Mexican drug lords, lying about Benghazi - if only Obama were white....

ROFL

Rev. Jim, how much dope HAVE you smoked this morning?




> The people in government that you adore and assign no responsibility to do thier jobs have a lot more to do with what happens in this country.



Are you hallucinating?



> It must be nice being you that you have a ready made whipping boy to blame for all of your concerns with our so called leaders.
> 
> Piss on you and your heros.  I could name a dozen elected representatives that need die of a virulent and speedy form of aides before I would be concerned with the president's performance.



Who are my heroes, Rev. Jim? And no doubt you would happily kill every man, woman, and child in the nation to please your little tin god... The difference between Obamabots and the Khmer Rouge is non-existent.


----------



## Foxfyre

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> what I see in this thread ,  appears to me at least to be the ole my shit don't stank syndrome and the lost art of separation&#8230;..
> 
> Now, someone&#8217;s opinion is not wrong in that an OPINION.  It seems that when you are argue a viewpoint you are arguing for your opinion, as in ideology and using what facts you may want to employ buttressing  why you think your view is, not so much superior but, more  valid in that debate(?).
> 
> Facts that are made or refuted don&#8217;t seem to really mean much on the net, if someone bases an argument on what appears to be a false fact, ideology seems to take over&#8230;..if that persons ideology is stronger then their ability to parse a fact and/or honesty,  to say yea, &#8220; you&#8217;re right there&#8221; , separation is lost, the debate becomes; &#8220; you&#8217;re a lib or con DB and since libs/cons are ___________anyway, you&#8217;re wrong&#8221;.
> 
> That dovetails  into the; &#8216;my crap don&#8217;t stank &#8216; side of the debate where in folks post examples of libs or cons making  remarks that are hurtful, pejorative etc.  a sign held at a rally becomes the mouthpiece of the entire group&#8230;..where really, examples  of dopes with signage from the &#8216;other side&#8217; exist but when  posted too, are now, all of a sudden not representative of that group, its only YOUR group that gets characterized by same. It cannot be both.
> 
> And in the end,  what I see to is [that]  there doesn&#8217;t seem to be acceptance, hell, even recognition of or there exists  genuine, intellectual or heartfelt, moral or ethical objection(s) , that doesn&#8217;t get labeled as &#8216;hateful&#8217;. Simple examples, if you are for Obamacare you&#8217;re a statist Obamabot, if your opposed to gay _marriage_, you&#8217;re a homophobe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's worse than that Traj.
> 
> Just on the issue of gay rights alone:
> 
> In a recent prior argument on this thread, I expressed my conviction that people who want a Mayberry USA should be able to have that.  But that was immediately translated as somehow favoring DOMA and therefore was homophobic or extremist.
> 
> If I say that a modern conservative/classical liberal sees value in traditional marriage, that will immediately be translated as anti-gay marriage and/or homophobic and/or hateful.
> 
> If I point out that the presence of mostly traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education, that will also be labeled as anti-gay, homophobic, hateful, extremist.
> 
> From the more entrenched, more radical modern Left, there is no tolerance for any view other than the politically correct one of the current week, month, or year.  Which is one reason that modern American liberalism is often seen in such a negative light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how exactly are conservatives going to achieve their &#8216;Mayberry USA&#8217;?
> 
> The only logical extrapolation is that there will be laws and policies in place designed to disadvantage those who don&#8217;t &#8216;conform,&#8217; in clear violation of 14th Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> It&#8217;s also a fallacy that only a &#8216;conservative community&#8217; of traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education.
> 
> Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples expressing the liberal values of diversity and inclusiveness are just as capable of achieving those goals, if not more so &#8211; indeed, America is always at its greatest and most successful when all are allowed to participate and contribute, not just those who adhere to &#8216;conservative concepts.&#8217;
Click to expand...


This is not an argument for what community/society is worst, worse, better, or best.  (Another concept that liberalism seems to infuse into the water so that liberals so often miss the point being made.)  It is the argument for having the kind of lifestyle you want.

Just as some towns want to retain a certain aesthetic and restrict the architecture of the buildings that can be constructed, the height and type of signs that can be used, strict noise ordinances,  etc. -

Just as the people of Carmel, California, passed an ordinace banning ice cream cones outside of commercial or public buildings--I kid you not--because people got tired of seeing the mess on the sidewalks -

Just as some towns pass rigid leash laws for ALL pets, even cats -

If a community wants a town of quiet streets with lots of speed bumps, lots of churches, no strip clubs, no saloons, no adult bookstores, no abortion mills, or otherwise a society structured to increase their pursuit of happiness and enjoyment of life, a community should be able to have that -

Just as a community that wants the abortion clinic, the bars and nightclubs, the strip clubs, the adult bookstores, and rowdy gay pride parades should be able to have that.

And any of us should be able to live in the place that would be most satisfying for our chosen lifestyle and contributes to our pursuit of happiness.

To the conservative/classical liberal/libertarian, this is such a simple concept of what liberty is and what the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness is.

The liberal would say that the 'anything goes' town should be protected, but the Mayberry USA must be denied its right to exist?  Or that if it does it is somehow evil?  That would be a very twisted concept of what liberty is indeed.


----------



## AVG-JOE

RKMBrown said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are FOS.  Anti-Gay is the hate and fear felt by the anti-gay crowd.  Just because the democrats switch their view on gays every year does not give them the credit for being pro-gay.  That the is dumbest opinion I've ever read on this board. Most conservatives did not like Romney.  Romney was anti-gay rights... Hated him for that and many other reasons.  Romney was a progressive liberal posing as a republican.  I'm a constitutional conservative christian heterosexual and did not vote for Romney.  Pull my finger jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And right on schedule... Cue the intolerant conservative red-neck.
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight.  Me being tolerant of gays makes me an intolerant conservative red-neck.  This because I'm intolerant of your intolerance for gays... I see.  ROFL you must be a liberal your logic is flawless.
Click to expand...


Perhaps I had difficulty understanding the meaning in your post because it was so peppered with pointless personal insults.

If I have misread you, I apologize.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Foxfyre said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's worse than that Traj.
> 
> Just on the issue of gay rights alone:
> 
> In a recent prior argument on this thread, I expressed my conviction that people who want a Mayberry USA should be able to have that.  But that was immediately translated as somehow favoring DOMA and therefore was homophobic or extremist.
> 
> If I say that a modern conservative/classical liberal sees value in traditional marriage, that will immediately be translated as anti-gay marriage and/or homophobic and/or hateful.
> 
> If I point out that the presence of mostly traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education, that will also be labeled as anti-gay, homophobic, hateful, extremist.
> 
> From the more entrenched, more radical modern Left, there is no tolerance for any view other than the politically correct one of the current week, month, or year.  Which is one reason that modern American liberalism is often seen in such a negative light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how exactly are conservatives going to achieve their Mayberry USA?
> 
> The only logical extrapolation is that there will be laws and policies in place designed to disadvantage those who dont conform, in clear violation of 14th Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> Its also a fallacy that only a conservative community of traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education.
> 
> Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples expressing the liberal values of diversity and inclusiveness are just as capable of achieving those goals, if not more so  indeed, America is always at its greatest and most successful when all are allowed to participate and contribute, not just those who adhere to conservative concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not an argument for what community/society is worst, worse, better, or best.  (Another concept that liberalism seems to infuse into the water so that liberals so often miss the point being made.)  It is the argument for having the kind of lifestyle you want.
> 
> Just as some towns want to retain a certain aesthetic and restrict the architecture of the buildings that can be constructed, the height and type of signs that can be used, strict noise ordinances,  etc. -
> 
> Just as the people of Carmel, California, passed an ordinace banning ice cream cones outside of commercial or public buildings--I kid you not--because people got tired of seeing the mess on the sidewalks -
> 
> Just as some towns pass rigid leash laws for ALL pets, even cats -
> 
> If a community wants a town of quiet streets with lots of speed bumps, lots of churches, no strip clubs, no saloons, no adult bookstores, no abortion mills, or otherwise a society structured to increase their pursuit of happiness and enjoyment of life, a community should be able to have that -
> 
> Just as a community that wants the abortion clinic, the bars and nightclubs, the strip clubs, the adult bookstores, and rowdy gay pride parades should be able to have that.
> 
> And any of us should be able to live in the place that would be most satisfying for our chosen lifestyle and contributes to our pursuit of happiness.
> 
> To the conservative/classical liberal/libertarian, this is such a simple concept of what liberty is and what the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness is.
> 
> The liberal would say that the 'anything goes' town should be protected, but the Mayberry USA must be denied its right to exist?  Or that if it does it is somehow evil?  That would be a very twisted concept of what liberty is indeed.
Click to expand...


Except that nothing you list can be used to discriminate.  It becomes a problem when a group, even a majority group, tries to pass legislation that creates second-class citizens like DOMA did.


----------



## RKMBrown

AVG-JOE said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> And right on schedule... Cue the intolerant conservative red-neck.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight.  Me being tolerant of gays makes me an intolerant conservative red-neck.  This because I'm intolerant of your intolerance for gays... I see.  ROFL you must be a liberal your logic is flawless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps I had difficulty understanding the meaning in your post because it was so peppered with pointless personal insults.
> 
> If I have misread you, I apologize.
Click to expand...


 I may have been intentionally obtuse.  This because I'm not convinced that every person of any party agrees with everything done by the party they tend to agree with most.

<-- Constitutional Conservative, and I don't support laws that discriminate based on race, gender, creed, religion, sexual preference, ...


----------



## Trajan

AVG-JOE said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how exactly are conservatives going to achieve their Mayberry USA?
> 
> The only logical extrapolation is that there will be laws and policies in place designed to disadvantage those who dont conform, in clear violation of 14th Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> Its also a fallacy that only a conservative community of traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education.
> 
> Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples expressing the liberal values of diversity and inclusiveness are just as capable of achieving those goals, if not more so  indeed, America is always at its greatest and most successful when all are allowed to participate and contribute, not just those who adhere to conservative concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not an argument for what community/society is worst, worse, better, or best.  (Another concept that liberalism seems to infuse into the water so that liberals so often miss the point being made.)  It is the argument for having the kind of lifestyle you want.
> 
> Just as some towns want to retain a certain aesthetic and restrict the architecture of the buildings that can be constructed, the height and type of signs that can be used, strict noise ordinances,  etc. -
> 
> Just as the people of Carmel, California, passed an ordinace banning ice cream cones outside of commercial or public buildings--I kid you not--because people got tired of seeing the mess on the sidewalks -
> 
> Just as some towns pass rigid leash laws for ALL pets, even cats -
> 
> If a community wants a town of quiet streets with lots of speed bumps, lots of churches, no strip clubs, no saloons, no adult bookstores, no abortion mills, or otherwise a society structured to increase their pursuit of happiness and enjoyment of life, a community should be able to have that -
> 
> Just as a community that wants the abortion clinic, the bars and nightclubs, the strip clubs, the adult bookstores, and rowdy gay pride parades should be able to have that.
> 
> And any of us should be able to live in the place that would be most satisfying for our chosen lifestyle and contributes to our pursuit of happiness.
> 
> To the conservative/classical liberal/libertarian, this is such a simple concept of what liberty is and what the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness is.
> 
> The liberal would say that the 'anything goes' town should be protected, but the Mayberry USA must be denied its right to exist?  Or that if it does it is somehow evil?  That would be a very twisted concept of what liberty is indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that nothing you list can be used to discriminate.  It becomes a problem when a group, even a majority group, tries to pass legislation that creates second-class citizens like DOMA did.
Click to expand...


thats a matter of.....opinion


----------



## Trajan

AVG-JOE said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.
> 
> They are a Conservative think tank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least conservatives HAVE think tanks.  And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials.   I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong.   So far crickets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can someone possibly show how someone else or an organization got an *opinion* wrong?
> 
> Step one is to admit that liberal opinion is JUST as valid as conservative opinion.
> *Step two is to accept the election results and move on.*
Click to expand...



uhmm where is BFGN? are you telling us we have to remain silent joe?


----------



## koshergrl

Pogo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples expressing the liberal values of diversity and inclusiveness are just as capable of achieving those goals,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you those were exclusively "liberal values"? And what makes you think that "Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples" can't be as conservative as any other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they're "Liberal" values in the political sense.  It goes back to the Liberal tenet of "all men are created equal", which, again, proffered the idea of classless society as opposed to a caste system of aristocracy versus commoners.  And again, in that sense, being what this country is founded on, we are all Liberals.
> 
> There may be a danger in tossing the word "liberal" around as a _social _value, as opposed to so-called "conservative" social values, in the endless quest to polarize the populace into a dichotomy of two camps permanently at war.  That is IMHO another fallout of these misleading attempts to redefine the word "Liberal" into something it isn't.
Click to expand...


Liberals don't believe all men are created equal. They spend a ridiculous amount of time, energy and money trying to penalize certain groups while advancing others, usually based on skin color, but sometimes based on sex, who their parents are, where they come from, or who they know. You guys are ALL about inequality. It's your defining characteristic. Nothing that today's liberals espouse has anything to do with the founding tenets of our country (which are, after all, Christian tenets).


----------



## Trajan

Wolfsister77 said:


> Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.
> 
> They are a Conservative think tank.



maybe, and Brookins...... Rand etc?

I always thought the best way of handle that kind of thing ( source wars)  was to find 'facts' elsewhere to offer in dispute ...


----------



## Foxfyre

Trajan said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.
> 
> They are a Conservative think tank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe, and Brookins...... Rand etc?
> 
> I always thought the best way of handle that kind of thing ( source wars)  was to find 'facts' elsewhere to offer in dispute ...
Click to expand...


Brookings is as left leaning as Heritage is right.

Good facts and data are good facts and data regardless of who puts them out, however, and I have not found Brookings or Heritage to ever intentionally skew, alter, or manipulate data or facts to make a particular ideological argument.  Each might interpret the data to mean different things, but for both, it is what it is.  And both will publish good and reasoned opposing arguments for a particular concept.  And both will criticize actions of individuals or political parties regardless of the labels on them.  Both are run and populated with humans capable of misjudgment and error as all humans are.  But both do good work and both are going to get it as right as anybody will.

A good idea and good work is a good idea or good work regardless of who does it.

And as a conservative/classical liberal/libertarian I prefer to go to those who are doing the research and providing verifiable information--Heritage for instance always gives its sources for what it publishes.   CATO, Brookings, and Heritage--that covers ALL the bases--are doing research and analysis that almost nobody else is doing.


----------



## Foxfyre

Trajan said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.
> 
> They are a Conservative think tank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe, and Brookins...... Rand etc?
> 
> I always thought the best way of handle that kind of thing ( source wars)  was to find 'facts' elsewhere to offer in dispute ...
Click to expand...


But we agree on this.  If I use ANY source, I always check to see what its own sources were or what the conclusions or thesis is based on.  If a questionable fact cannot be verified elsewhere, I don't trust it.  Which is why I don't go prowling through intentionally right wing sites, especially highly partisan sites, to find something to support my opinion, and why it lowers my respect for the integrity and scholarship of those who go prowling through highly partisan or biased leftwing sites looking for something to support their opinions--or more often something to cut and paste in lieu of making an argument themselves.

"Proof texting" or lifting something out of context and presenting it as evidence that it means something it never meant--many do that with the Bible, with the Founders, with public figures, and with ancient and modern scholars all the time--should never be accepted as valid debate by the intelligent.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> But we agree on this.  If I use ANY source, I always check to see what its own sources were or what the conclusions or thesis is based on.  If a questionable fact cannot be verified elsewhere, I don't trust it.  Which is why I don't go prowling through intentionally right wing sites, especially highly partisan sites, to find something to support my opinion, and why it lowers my respect for the integrity and scholarship of those who go prowling through highly partisan or biased leftwing sites looking for something to support their opinions--or more often something to cut and paste in lieu of making an argument themselves.
> 
> "Proof texting" or lifting something out of context and presenting it as evidence that it means something it never meant--many do that with the Bible, with the Founders, with public figures, and with ancient and modern scholars all the time--should never be accepted as valid debate by the intelligent.



Brookings is a perfect example, and also an illustration of the difference between left and right.

We all acknowledge that The Brookings Institute is left of center - that is simply a matter of fact. That said, you'll not find a single conservative on this board who impugns the integrity of Brookings, nor dismisses them out of hand.

How unlike the left, who instantly dismisses any information provided by those who fail to march lockstep to the party ideology. 

In a very real way, the difference between left and right is the difference between dogma, inflexible and blind; and information, inquisitive and bright.


----------



## Dragonlady

Uncensored2008 said:


> In a very real way, the difference between left and right is the difference between dogma, inflexible and blind; and information, inquisitive and bright.



I would say the same thing, except it's the conservatives I find to be inflexible and blind.


----------



## RKMBrown

Dragonlady said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a very real way, the difference between left and right is the difference between dogma, inflexible and blind; and information, inquisitive and bright.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say the same thing, except it's the conservatives I find to be inflexible and blind.
Click to expand...


Yeah most conservatives are not very flexible to the idea of liberals robbing them blind.  Go figure.


----------



## Trajan

Foxfyre said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.
> 
> They are a Conservative think tank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe, and Brookins...... Rand etc?
> 
> I always thought the best way of handle that kind of thing ( source wars)  was to find 'facts' elsewhere to offer in dispute ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brookings is as left leaning as Heritage is right.
> 
> Good facts and data are good facts and data regardless of who puts them out, however, and I have not found Brookings or Heritage to ever intentionally skew, alter, or manipulate data or facts to make a particular ideological argument.  Each might interpret the data to mean different things, but for both, it is what it is.  And both will publish good and reasoned opposing arguments for a particular concept.  And both will criticize actions of individuals or political parties regardless of the labels on them.  Both are run and populated with humans capable of misjudgment and error as all humans are.  But both do good work and both are going to get it as right as anybody will.
> 
> A good idea and good work is a good idea or good work regardless of who does it.
> 
> And as a conservative/classical liberal/libertarian I prefer to go to those who are doing the research and providing verifiable information--Heritage for instance always gives its sources for what it publishes.   CATO, Brookings, and Heritage--that covers ALL the bases--are doing research and analysis that almost nobody else is doing.
Click to expand...




> Brookings is as left leaning as Heritage is right.



exactly


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragonlady said:


> I would say the same thing, except it's the conservatives I find to be inflexible and blind.



Whilst you screamed over any information from a source denounced by your party.....


----------



## westwall

Dragonlady said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a very real way, the difference between left and right is the difference between dogma, inflexible and blind; and information, inquisitive and bright.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say the same thing, except it's the conservatives I find to be inflexible and blind.
Click to expand...







I guess you haven't looked in the mirror lately....


----------



## Foxfyre

westwall said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a very real way, the difference between left and right is the difference between dogma, inflexible and blind; and information, inquisitive and bright.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say the same thing, except it's the conservatives I find to be inflexible and blind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you haven't looked in the mirror lately....
Click to expand...


Yup.  Almost all of us have pulled from Brookings from time to time.   DL would almost certainly deem that a respectable and satisfactory source. I wonder if she has ever gone to the Heritage Foundation or CATO site for information ever?  But we're the blind and inflexible ones?


----------



## Bfgrn

Here is a conservative's opinion, and some facts about one of your beloved right wing think tanks...

David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind

by Bruce Bartlett

As some readers of this blog may know, I was fired by a right wing think tank called the National Center for Policy Analysis in 2005 for writing a book critical of George W. Bush's policies, especially his support for Medicare Part D. In the years since, I have lost a great many friends and been shunned by conservative society in Washington, DC.

Now the same thing has happened to David Frum, who has been fired by the American Enterprise Institute. I don't know all the details, but I presume that his Waterloo post on Sunday condemning Republicans for failing to work with Democrats on healthcare reform was the final straw.

Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn't already.

Sadly, there is no place for David and me to go. The donor community is only interested in financing organizations that parrot the party line, such as the one recently established by McCain economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.

I will have more to say on this topic later. But I wanted to say that this is a black day for what passes for a conservative movement, scholarship, and the once-respected AEI.


----------



## westwall

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say the same thing, except it's the conservatives I find to be inflexible and blind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you haven't looked in the mirror lately....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  Almost all of us have pulled from Brookings from time to time.   DL would almost certainly deem that a respectable and satisfactory source. I wonder if she has ever gone to the Heritage Foundation or CATO site for information ever?  But we're the blind and inflexible ones?
Click to expand...







In my long experience the most inflexible people I have EVER dealt with are ultra leftists.  No amount of factual data will divert them from their pre-conceived ideas....none...


----------



## Smilebong

westwall said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you haven't looked in the mirror lately....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  Almost all of us have pulled from Brookings from time to time.   DL would almost certainly deem that a respectable and satisfactory source. I wonder if she has ever gone to the Heritage Foundation or CATO site for information ever?  But we're the blind and inflexible ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my long experience the most inflexible people I have EVER dealt with are ultra leftists.  No amount of factual data will divert them from their pre-conceived ideas....none...
Click to expand...


I have experienced the same.  And I have never been able to figure out why.


----------



## Trajan

Bfgrn said:


> Here is a conservative's opinion, and some facts about one of your beloved right wing think tanks...
> 
> David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind
> 
> by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> As some readers of this blog may know, I was fired by a right wing think tank called the National Center for Policy Analysis in 2005 for writing a book critical of George W. Bush's policies, especially his support for Medicare Part D. In the years since, I have lost a great many friends and been shunned by conservative society in Washington, DC.
> 
> Now the same thing has happened to David Frum, who has been fired by the American Enterprise Institute. I don't know all the details, but I presume that his Waterloo post on Sunday condemning Republicans for failing to work with Democrats on healthcare reform was the final straw.
> 
> Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.
> 
> It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn't already.
> 
> Sadly, there is no place for David and me to go. The donor community is only interested in financing organizations that parrot the party line, such as the one recently established by McCain economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.
> 
> I will have more to say on this topic later. But I wanted to say that this is a black day for what passes for a conservative movement, scholarship, and the once-respected AEI.



oh god not this again...


----------



## Foxfyre

Trajan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a conservative's opinion, and some facts about one of your beloved right wing think tanks...
> 
> David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind
> 
> by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> As some readers of this blog may know, I was fired by a right wing think tank called the National Center for Policy Analysis in 2005 for writing a book critical of George W. Bush's policies, especially his support for Medicare Part D. In the years since, I have lost a great many friends and been shunned by conservative society in Washington, DC.
> 
> Now the same thing has happened to David Frum, who has been fired by the American Enterprise Institute. I don't know all the details, but I presume that his Waterloo post on Sunday condemning Republicans for failing to work with Democrats on healthcare reform was the final straw.
> 
> Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.
> 
> It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn't already.
> 
> Sadly, there is no place for David and me to go. The donor community is only interested in financing organizations that parrot the party line, such as the one recently established by McCain economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.
> 
> I will have more to say on this topic later. But I wanted to say that this is a black day for what passes for a conservative movement, scholarship, and the once-respected AEI.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh god not this again...
Click to expand...


It's just another case of 'broad and open minded liberals' cutting and pasting an opinion by somebody rather than doing any digging to fnd out whether the opinion--most especially such a self-serving one--is true.  While it is true that Bartlett was fired, it was NOT true that it was because he wrote a book critical of President Bush--that is of course the liberal line that many gleefully swallow hook, line, and sinker, without question.

The reason was that he accepted six figures to write a policy analysis - which is what the Center for Policy Analysis does - and instead he wrote a political expose'--something the Center for Policy Analysis does not do--on company time.  And refused to fix it when he was called on it.  Had he analyzed the effectiveness or lack thereof of the various Bush initiatives there would have been no problem.  But he instead attacked Pesident Bush personally.  NCPA doesn't do that.   Had Bartlett done it to Obama, the response would have been the same.

David Frum and AEI parted company for much of the same reason.  Instead of developing a policy analysis of HOW the different sides could work together effecively on healthcare reform, he attacked Reublicans.  The AEI does not do that.   Had Frum attacked the Democrats in the same way, the results would have been the same.

It is the difference between arguing, defending, or competently criticizing a concept--the purpose of research, debate, and analysis--is served by accusing, blaming, and/or condemning somebody.  Frum too often does the latter and not nearly as much of the former.

And coincidentally it is why there is rarely a productive discussion on any issue when conservatives or liberals attack groups and people personally, and will not look at an issue objectively and separate from personalities or political groups involved.


----------



## westwall

Foxfyre said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a conservative's opinion, and some facts about one of your beloved right wing think tanks...
> 
> David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind
> 
> by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> As some readers of this blog may know, I was fired by a right wing think tank called the National Center for Policy Analysis in 2005 for writing a book critical of George W. Bush's policies, especially his support for Medicare Part D. In the years since, I have lost a great many friends and been shunned by conservative society in Washington, DC.
> 
> Now the same thing has happened to David Frum, who has been fired by the American Enterprise Institute. I don't know all the details, but I presume that his Waterloo post on Sunday condemning Republicans for failing to work with Democrats on healthcare reform was the final straw.
> 
> Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.
> 
> It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn't already.
> 
> Sadly, there is no place for David and me to go. The donor community is only interested in financing organizations that parrot the party line, such as the one recently established by McCain economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.
> 
> I will have more to say on this topic later. But I wanted to say that this is a black day for what passes for a conservative movement, scholarship, and the once-respected AEI.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh god not this again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just another case of 'broad and open minded liberals' cutting and pasting an opinion by somebody rather than doing any digging to fnd out whether the opinion--most especially such a self-serving one--is true.  While it is true that Bartlett was fired, it was NOT true that it was because he wrote a book critical of President Bush--that is of course the liberal line that many gleefully swallow hook, line, and sinker, without question.
> 
> The reason was that he accepted six figures to write a policy analysis - which is what the Center for Policy Analysis does - and instead he wrote a political expose'--something the Center for Policy Analysis does not do--on company time.  And refused to fix it when he was called on it.  Had he analyzed the effectiveness or lack thereof of the various Bush initiatives there would have been no problem.  But he instead attacked Pesident Bush personally.  NCPA doesn't do that.   Had Bartlett done it to Obama, the response would have been the same.
> 
> David Frum and AEI parted company for much of the same reason.  Instead of developing a policy analysis of HOW the different sides could work together effecively on healthcare reform, he attacked Reublicans.  The AEI does not do that.   Had Frum attacked the Democrats in the same way, the results would have been the same.
> 
> It is the difference between arguing, defending, or competently criticizing a concept--the purpose of research, debate, and analysis--is served by accusing, blaming, and/or condemning somebody.  Frum too often does the latter and not nearly as much of the former.
> 
> And coincidentally it is why there is rarely a productive discussion on any issue when conservatives or liberals attack groups and people personally, and will not look at an issue objectively and separate from personalities or political groups involved.
Click to expand...










What?  You expect leftwing nutters to actually care about facts?  Surely you jest!


----------



## AVG-JOE

RKMBrown said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight.  Me being tolerant of gays makes me an intolerant conservative red-neck.  This because I'm intolerant of your intolerance for gays... I see.  ROFL you must be a liberal your logic is flawless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I had difficulty understanding the meaning in your post because it was so peppered with pointless personal insults.
> 
> If I have misread you, I apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may have been intentionally obtuse.  This because I'm not convinced that every person of any party agrees with everything done by the party they tend to agree with most.
> 
> <-- Constitutional Conservative, and I don't support laws that discriminate based on race, gender, creed, religion, sexual preference, ...
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's a problem with a thread like this.  Most of us are not nearly as partisan as we can start sounding 162 pages in to a stupid "defend your base ideology" thread.

This is the kind of 'Liberal' I fancy myself:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html
It's the 'liberal' thinking of the era that impresses me.

My title is a bit abrasive... my only excuse:  American politics of the first two decades of the 21st Century.  

I'm a simple man.  Politically I'd like to vote for fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, and to be left alone.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrO4_nyamZs]The Who - The Seeker - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## American_Jihad

Bfgrn said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what President Kennedy meant when he said "ask not..." or are you going to twist his words to serve YOUR agenda, and not his?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You twisted jfk's speech not me, oh yeah that salunsky crap don't work on me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see, a typical conservative troll, infested with FEAR.
> 
> Go run home to mommy and hide under the bed...
Click to expand...


Typical progressive/liberal response from a cocksucking plagiarizer that's got nothing...

By the way liberals will be hiding under the bed when the time comes...


----------



## Bfgrn

Trajan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a conservative's opinion, and some facts about one of your beloved right wing think tanks...
> 
> David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind
> 
> by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> As some readers of this blog may know, I was fired by a right wing think tank called the National Center for Policy Analysis in 2005 for writing a book critical of George W. Bush's policies, especially his support for Medicare Part D. In the years since, I have lost a great many friends and been shunned by conservative society in Washington, DC.
> 
> Now the same thing has happened to David Frum, who has been fired by the American Enterprise Institute. I don't know all the details, but I presume that his Waterloo post on Sunday condemning Republicans for failing to work with Democrats on healthcare reform was the final straw.
> 
> Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.
> 
> It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn't already.
> 
> Sadly, there is no place for David and me to go. The donor community is only interested in financing organizations that parrot the party line, such as the one recently established by McCain economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.
> 
> I will have more to say on this topic later. But I wanted to say that this is a black day for what passes for a conservative movement, scholarship, and the once-respected AEI.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh god not this again...
Click to expand...


Yea, let's not face the truth, it will ruin the dogmatic drone going on by the right on this thread.

Let's glean some key points from Bartlett's damning narrative:

American Enterprise Institute "scholars" on the subject of health care reform had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

THAT is because what Obama and the Democrats did was pass the conservative health care plan from the early 1990's, right down the the conservative idea of an individual mandate.


----------



## Bfgrn

American_Jihad said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> You twisted jfk's speech not me, oh yeah that salunsky crap don't work on me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see, a typical conservative troll, infested with FEAR.
> 
> Go run home to mommy and hide under the bed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical progressive/liberal response from a cocksucking plagiarizer that's got nothing...
> 
> By the way liberals will be hiding under the bed when the time comes...
Click to expand...


No plagiarism pea brain. The key narrative was Robert Frost's who I gave credit to. You are just confused, and stupid. A typical right wing turd.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> :sigh: Foxy when are you gonna learn some political science... you insist on conflating leftism with liberalism and then turn around and call them "self-described liberals".  Define "self".
> 
> 
> You know what, I think I'm going to start calling hamburgers "ocelots"... self-described of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo, we've been through this.
> 
> There is nothing even remotely "liberal" about you. You espouse positions in this forum that consistently seek to curtail individual liberty, particularly in regard to 1st and 2nd amendment liberty. You constantly promote the authoritarian left, defending petty despots like Obama and Holder in virtually every case.
> 
> You are a leftist Pogo, not a liberal.
Click to expand...


Uhh.... really Pothead?

(for those of you who haven't seen the act, this is the part where I challenge Unsensical to "back that shit up" and having nothing, he tucks tail and slinks away.  So I guess I'm up... )

Ahem-- Go ahead, quote me where I've espoused curtailment of these liberties.  Watcha got?  



As always.... cue crickets.





I admit I don't know why he keeps digging himself into these holes.  He's like a dog.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a conservative's opinion, and some facts about one of your beloved right wing think tanks...
> 
> David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind
> 
> by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> As some readers of this blog may know, I was fired by a right wing think tank called the National Center for Policy Analysis in 2005 for writing a book critical of George W. Bush's policies, especially his support for Medicare Part D. In the years since, I have lost a great many friends and been shunned by conservative society in Washington, DC.
> 
> Now the same thing has happened to David Frum, who has been fired by the American Enterprise Institute. I don't know all the details, but I presume that his Waterloo post on Sunday condemning Republicans for failing to work with Democrats on healthcare reform was the final straw.
> 
> Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.
> 
> It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn't already.
> 
> Sadly, there is no place for David and me to go. The donor community is only interested in financing organizations that parrot the party line, such as the one recently established by McCain economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.
> 
> I will have more to say on this topic later. But I wanted to say that this is a black day for what passes for a conservative movement, scholarship, and the once-respected AEI.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh god not this again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just another case of 'broad and open minded liberals' cutting and pasting an opinion by somebody rather than doing any digging to fnd out whether the opinion--most especially such a self-serving one--is true.  While it is true that Bartlett was fired, it was NOT true that it was because he wrote a book critical of President Bush--that is of course the liberal line that many gleefully swallow hook, line, and sinker, without question.
> 
> The reason was that he accepted six figures to write a policy analysis - which is what the Center for Policy Analysis does - and instead he wrote a political expose'--something the Center for Policy Analysis does not do--on company time.  And refused to fix it when he was called on it.  Had he analyzed the effectiveness or lack thereof of the various Bush initiatives there would have been no problem.  But he instead attacked Pesident Bush personally.  NCPA doesn't do that.   Had Bartlett done it to Obama, the response would have been the same.
> 
> David Frum and AEI parted company for much of the same reason.  Instead of developing a policy analysis of HOW the different sides could work together effecively on healthcare reform, he attacked Reublicans.  The AEI does not do that.   Had Frum attacked the Democrats in the same way, the results would have been the same.
> 
> It is the difference between arguing, defending, or competently criticizing a concept--the purpose of research, debate, and analysis--is served by accusing, blaming, and/or condemning somebody.  Frum too often does the latter and not nearly as much of the former.
> 
> And coincidentally it is why there is rarely a productive discussion on any issue when conservatives or liberals attack groups and people personally, and will not look at an issue objectively and separate from personalities or political groups involved.
Click to expand...


Digging? Then where are your LINKS???? PROVE your claims and show us the lying source you are using.


----------



## Pogo

Unkotare said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you those were exclusively "liberal values"? And what makes you think that "Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples" can't be as conservative as any other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're "Liberal" values in the political sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the "political sense" that certain people misuse the terms for political purposes.
Click to expand...


Thank you.  That's what I keep saying.



Unkotare said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It goes back to the Liberal tenet of "all men are created equal", which, again, proffered the idea of classless society as opposed to a caste system of aristocracy versus commoners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet "liberals" constantly attempt to fabricate false "class warfare" for cynical political purposes.
Click to expand...


.... like you just did there.  QED.


----------



## BDBoop

If they truly do hate liberals, aka people they don't even know, and couldn't pick out of a line-up, I'm guessing they are mentally ill.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Pogo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're "Liberal" values in the political sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the "political sense" that certain people misuse the terms for political purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  That's what I keep saying.
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It goes back to the Liberal tenet of "all men are created equal", which, again, proffered the idea of classless society as opposed to a caste system of aristocracy versus commoners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet "liberals" constantly attempt to fabricate false "class warfare" for cynical political purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .... like you just did there.  QED.
Click to expand...


The problem, of course, is what conservatives perceive as class warfare, isnt.


----------



## Bfgrn

American_Jihad said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> You twisted jfk's speech not me, oh yeah that salunsky crap don't work on me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see, a typical conservative troll, infested with FEAR.
> 
> Go run home to mommy and hide under the bed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical progressive/liberal response from a cocksucking plagiarizer that's got nothing...
> 
> By the way liberals will be hiding under the bed when the time comes...
Click to expand...


Irony...your screen name is "American_Jihad"...

But WHO are the American Jihadists?

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

*Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency
*





"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

AVG-JOE said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I had difficulty understanding the meaning in your post because it was so peppered with pointless personal insults.
> 
> If I have misread you, I apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I may have been intentionally obtuse.  This because I'm not convinced that every person of any party agrees with everything done by the party they tend to agree with most.
> 
> <-- Constitutional Conservative, and I don't support laws that discriminate based on race, gender, creed, religion, sexual preference, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's a problem with a thread like this.  Most of us are not nearly as partisan as we can start sounding 162 pages in to a stupid "defend your base ideology" thread.
> 
> This is the kind of 'Liberal' I fancy myself:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html
> It's the 'liberal' thinking of the era that impresses me.
> 
> My title is a bit abrasive... my only excuse:  American politics of the first two decades of the 21st Century.
> 
> I'm a simple man.  Politically I'd like to vote for fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, and to be left alone.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrO4_nyamZs]The Who - The Seeker - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


I would prefer sound, responsible, pragmatic governance practiced in good faith and predicated on facts and evidence as opposed to subjective partisan dogma, left or right.  

That Americans so aggressively disdain pragmatism is indeed our great failing.


----------



## JimBowie1958

BDBoop said:


> If they truly do hate liberals, aka people they don't even know, and couldn't pick out of a line-up, I'm guessing they are mentally ill.



It is enough that a person would willingly refer to themselves as liberals in the current use of the word.

It doesn't really matter if someone is truthful and accurate when they call themselves some vile word or phrase, like a 'cannibal' for instance.

The conversation maybe lively but you are a fool to sleep over.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> I would prefer sound, responsible, pragmatic governance practiced in good faith and predicated on facts and evidence as opposed to subjective partisan dogma, left or right.
> 
> That Americans so aggressively disdain pragmatism is indeed our great failing.



Americans distrust self-proclaimed 'pragmatists' because they don't like a con. 'Pragmatism' pretends to transcend ideology, but it doesn't. It merely hides it. 

Until we decide where we want to go (the point of ideology) the pragmatic details of how to get there are moot.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would prefer sound, responsible, pragmatic governance practiced in good faith and predicated on facts and evidence as opposed to subjective partisan dogma, left or right.
> 
> That Americans so aggressively disdain pragmatism is indeed our great failing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Americans distrust self-proclaimed 'pragmatists' because they don't like a con. 'Pragmatism' pretends to transcend ideology, but it doesn't. It merely hides it.
> 
> Until we decide where we want to go (the point of ideology) the pragmatic details of how to get there are moot.
Click to expand...


Interesting comment.  You really made me think.  And of course you are right.

Again, I reject the wording of the OP that expresses a fallacious concept.  I don't think any of us hate liberals.  Most of us are quite fond of many liberals, though admittedly some do make it really difficult to like or respect them.  I wish the question posed was "Why do people hate liberalism?"

Those of us who call ourselves modern conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians do hate is the consequences of liberalism that we see as destructive to individuals, groups, our liberties, and our culture.    Liberals and authoritarians by any name are not content to fight for the right to live as they choose.  They wish to force us to live, think, speak, etc. as they deem righteous.   Look at how many chirped criticism of even WANTING to live in a Mayberry USA.  How many thought that shouldn't even be allowed anymore.

That is exactly the kind of thing the Founder intended to free us from.  And THAT is why we hate liberalism because it would again give government the power to dictate to us what liberties we shall have and can take them away as easily as it grants them.

The goal should always be to restore the principle, the idea, the brilliant concept that the Founders wrote into the Constitution.  With that as our guide, then everything else would fall into its rightful place.

So you are right dblack.  If we don't know what our goal is, all we do to improve things will just be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.


----------



## Uncensored2008

AVG-JOE said:


> Yeah, that's a problem with a thread like this.  Most of us are not nearly as partisan as we can start sounding 162 pages in to a stupid "defend your base ideology" thread.
> 
> This is the kind of 'Liberal' I fancy myself:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html
> It's the 'liberal' thinking of the era that impresses me.
> 
> My title is a bit abrasive... my only excuse:  American politics of the first two decades of the 21st Century.
> 
> I'm a simple man.  Politically I'd like to vote for fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, and to be left alone.



I think the problem you have is that too often, ideology gets tied to party.

While I don't believe it is possible to be a liberal and support the shameful democratic party, that does not mean I support the Republican party.

A political philosophy is important to a well balanced person. But values and convictions have no place in the DNC, with the GOP only slightly better. The authoritarian leftists in charge of the democrats are openly hostile to the very concept of integrity, expecting obedience to party rather than dedication to philosophy or values. 

As a liberal, I hold fast to a set of values - advocacy of liberty, particularly freedom of speech and thought, followed by economic liberty - which can only be secured through Laissez Faire Capitalism. It is not possible to be a liberal, and not promote liberty. The leftists, who seek economic slavery to the all powerful state, are the antithesis of what it is to be a liberal.


----------



## numan

Foxfyre said:


> If we don't know what our goal is, all we do to improve things will just be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.


I have news for you, Foxy. Our 21st century world has already hit the iceberg.

It really doesn't matter what what your goals are. No one now can do anything but rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic. The moronic, clueless human race has blown it. 

.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> Uhh.... really Pothead?
> 
> (for those of you who haven't seen the act, this is the part where I challenge Unsensical to "back that shit up" and having nothing, he tucks tail and slinks away.  So I guess I'm up... )
> 
> Ahem-- Go ahead, quote me where I've espoused curtailment of these liberties.  Watcha got?
> 
> 
> 
> As always.... cue crickets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admit I don't know why he keeps digging himself into these holes.  He's like a dog.



Quick Pogo, say something "liberal."

I realize that you think your little "prove water is wet" routine is really clever; but the reality is that it's infantile.

My view of you is that you are purely a leftist, opposed to economic freedom, favoring restrictions on speech, curtailment of 2nd amendment rights, eradication of 9th amendment protections, essentially a typical democrat.

IF you want to convince others that you are anything but a clone of TM or Rdean, then the onus is on you to do so - as always.


----------



## Foxfyre

numan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we don't know what our goal is, all we do to improve things will just be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
> 
> 
> 
> I have news for you, Foxy. Our 21st century world has already hit the iceberg.
> 
> It really doesn't matter what what your goals are. No one now can do anything but rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic. The moronic, clueless human race has blown it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


While I sympathise with the sentiment, I can't believe that Numan.

I constantly taught my children, sometimes chide my husband, sometimes give a Dutch Uncle lecture to myself, to focus energy and effort on solving a problem rather than wringing hands and/or getting mad because we have one.

I am a person of faith, so my philosophy is that the Lord never allows a poison without giving us the ability to find and implement an anecdote for it.   But for those who are not spiritually inclined, the lesson is the same.   We can of course damage, destroy, and ruin indiviuals or even whole groups of people.   But as a society, we have changed our thinking, our values, our beliefs into something much better time and time again.  And we can do so now.

Native Americans no longer send their old out to die of cold and starvation.  They now have a different view of life and individual worth.

We no longer have the Crusades or Inquisition and most of the world no longer condones slavery or indentured servitude or many other concepts once viewed as the norm.   There was much to admire in the culture and inspiration of the best of the Roman Empire, but there was also unconscionable cruelty and bloody wars and pure evil.  You have to look long and hard now to find a Nazi who thinks gassing millions of Jews is okay.  Think of the grandeur and nobility of ancient Egypt--also magnificent greatness mixed with evil--and look at the turmoil and chaos that exists there now.  That too can pass.

Yes we Americans and Europeans have made something of a mess of things  but we didn't get here over night.  It was a process of drip drip drip over decades.   We won't fix it over night either--it will have to be reversed slowly and carefully to avoid creating even worse chaos.   But I don't believe it can't be done.  And if the large majority of us agree on the goal we want to achieve, we can do it.

But returning to your comment, I do believe time is running out, and this is the last generation who will have the ability to begin restoring the concept of Ameica short of another bloody revolution.


----------



## Uncensored2008

BDBoop said:


> If they truly do hate liberals, aka people they don't even know, and couldn't pick out of a line-up, I'm guessing they are mentally ill.



What people are expressing, is that leftists constitute a clear and present danger to their way of life.

The sharp turn left of the democrats with the open hostility toward individual liberty and basic concepts of privacy, evoke strong emotions in many people. The campaign to mislabel the philosophy involved has been largely successful, so despite the fact that democrats have nothing to do with liberal, people equate the two.

When people say that they hate liberals, they mean they hate the authoritarian concentration of centralized power in the hands of Washington oligarchs who are crushing the life out of the nation with an iron boot to our neck.

And yes, I do mean Obama.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they truly do hate liberals, aka people they don't even know, and couldn't pick out of a line-up, I'm guessing they are mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What people are expressing, is that leftists constitute a clear and present danger to their way of life.
> 
> The sharp turn left of the democrats with the open hostility toward individual liberty and basic concepts of privacy, evoke strong emotions in many people. The campaign to mislabel the philosophy involved has been largely successful, so despite the fact that democrats have nothing to do with liberal, people equate the two.
> 
> When people say that they hate liberals, they mean they hate the authoritarian concentration of centralized power in the hands of Washington oligarchs who are crushing the life out of the nation with an iron boot to our neck.
> 
> And yes, I do mean Obama.
Click to expand...


And yet I don't think many, if any, of us conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians hate Obama, the person.  We hate what he represents.  We hate that he is unchallenged, even defended, by so many that have been brainwashed or enslaved by an ideology.  We hate that those to whom he belongs are allowed to get away with what we once would consider to be evil.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> And yet I don't think many, if any, of us conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians hate Obama, the person.  We hate what he represents.  We hate that he is unchallenged, even defended, by so many that have been brainwashed or enslaved by an ideology.  We hate that those to whom he belongs are allowed to get away with what we once would consider to be evil.



It's a tough question.

To be sure, it is the establishment of a central, authoritarian state that I oppose. But Obama is the figurehead associated with the eradication of Constitutional liberty, replaced by the rapidly expanding police state.

This hardly endears the man to me.

And I fully realize that 9/11 was the moment that we veered into a police state, that Bush holds much of the blame. Even so, Obama has accelerated to demise of civil rights to a level not dreamed about under Bush.

Perhaps I'm just surely today because Gestapo agents accosted me on the train, demanded papers and searching my bag - but then, 20 years ago, such was the stuff of films about life under the Third Reich, not the every day reality of America.

I do not love Big Brother - queue the rats...


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet I don't think many, if any, of us conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians hate Obama, the person.  We hate what he represents.  We hate that he is unchallenged, even defended, by so many that have been brainwashed or enslaved by an ideology.  We hate that those to whom he belongs are allowed to get away with what we once would consider to be evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a tough question.
> 
> To be sure, it is the establishment of a central, authoritarian state that I oppose. But Obama is the figurehead associated with the eradication of Constitutional liberty, replaced by the rapidly expanding police state.
> 
> This hardly endears the man to me.
> 
> And I fully realize that 9/11 was the moment that we veered into a police state, that Bush holds much of the blame. Even so, Obama has accelerated to demise of civil rights to a level not dreamed about under Bush.
> 
> Perhaps I'm just surely today because Gestapo agents accosted me on the train, demanded papers and searching my bag - but then, 20 years ago, such was the stuff of films about life under the Third Reich, not the every day reality of America.
> 
> I do not love Big Brother - queue the rats...
Click to expand...


Well that would probably make a lot of us a bit surly for sure.  I don't like the concept that I can be practically strip searched at the airport even though I fit the profile of absolutely no terrorists ever known to humankind.   And while I really don't want to share planes and trains and public buildings with suicide bombers, I resent the fact that political correctness does not allow authorities to focus on those who behave suspciously or fit the profile of those who would commit mayhem.

Liberty means that all have the same rights.   It is a different thing than inflicting consequences on everybody to avoid offending or irritating or hurting the feelings of a few.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhh.... really Pothead?
> 
> (for those of you who haven't seen the act, this is the part where I challenge Unsensical to "back that shit up" and having nothing, he tucks tail and slinks away.  So I guess I'm up... )
> 
> Ahem-- Go ahead, quote me where I've espoused curtailment of these liberties.  Watcha got?
> 
> 
> 
> As always.... cue crickets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admit I don't know why he keeps digging himself into these holes.  He's like a dog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quick Pogo, say something "liberal."
> 
> I realize that you think your little "prove water is wet" routine is really clever; but the reality is that it's infantile.
> 
> My view of you is that you are purely a leftist, opposed to economic freedom, favoring restrictions on speech, curtailment of 2nd amendment rights, eradication of 9th amendment protections, essentially a typical democrat.
> 
> IF you want to convince others that you are anything but a clone of TM or Rdean, then the onus is on you to do so - as always.
Click to expand...


The onus is on ME to prove YOUR theory because you forgot to justify it. 
  Yet another what they call "epic fail" from the Master of Ipse Dixit.  No link, no quote, no evidence no nuttin'.

Good to know there are some things we can always count on.  

You're a joke.


----------



## numan

Uncensored2008 said:


> Quick Pogo, say something "liberal."


I'm quite willing to say something "liberal."

I think all children should receive access to education and opportunities for advancement equal to those available to the children of inherited wealth.

Everyone should be encouraged and given the opportunity to lead as worthwhile a life as possible. 

Is a "conservative" going to disagree?
.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> The onus is on ME to prove YOUR theory because you forgot to justify it.



My OPINION is based on your posts. 

You claim, it is a misinterpretation of the real Pogo. So yes, the onus is upon you to prove your contention.




> Yet another what they call "epic fail" from the Master of Ipse Dixit.  No link, no quote, no evidence no nuttin'.
> 
> Good to know there are some things we can always count on.
> 
> You're a joke.



LOL

So, you think that excessive use of smilies makes up for your utter lack of content?


----------



## numan

Foxfyre said:


> But returning to your comment, I do believe time is running out, and this is the last generation who will have the ability to begin restoring the concept of Ameica short of another bloody revolution.


Some people find illusions to be comforting.

.


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> I'm quite willing to say something "liberal."
> 
> I think all children should receive access to education and opportunities for advancement equal to those available to the children of inherited wealth.



Paid for by armed robbery, no doubt?

But then, it cannot be "liberal" because you seek to strip the liberty of those who produce or have wealth to be secure in the persons for predation by larcenous thugs.



> Everyone should be encouraged and given the opportunity to lead as worthwhile a life as possible.
> 
> Is a "conservative" going to disagree?
> .



I support an equal opportunity - but that is a far cry from the demand for an equal outcome, based on the theft and coercion of those more talented or even more lucky.


----------



## Foxfyre

numan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But returning to your comment, I do believe time is running out, and this is the last generation who will have the ability to begin restoring the concept of Ameica short of another bloody revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Some people find illusions to be comforting.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No idea what you mean by that.  I have a goal in mind and believe I have enough sense of history to know how to achieve it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> Some people find illusions to be comforting.
> 
> .



Do you honestly believe that no future generation will again yearn for liberty, for the chance to be the masters of their own lives?


----------



## BDBoop

Uncensored2008 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they truly do hate liberals, aka people they don't even know, and couldn't pick out of a line-up, I'm guessing they are mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What people are expressing, is that leftists constitute a clear and present danger to their way of life.
> 
> The sharp turn left of the democrats with the open hostility toward individual liberty and basic concepts of privacy, evoke strong emotions in many people. The campaign to mislabel the philosophy involved has been largely successful, so despite the fact that democrats have nothing to do with liberal, people equate the two.
> 
> When people say that they hate liberals, they mean they hate the authoritarian concentration of centralized power in the hands of Washington oligarchs who are crushing the life out of the nation with an iron boot to our neck.
> 
> And yes, I do mean Obama.
Click to expand...


Understandable you mean Obama. But when people focus THAT hate on people here, then there's a problem. And I am not talking about the bulk of the board. I believe they say it, they may even believe it - but that's not thinking. That's reactionary. If anybody who shows their ass here on a daily basis popped up and said "So the doctor says ... I got six months." Right? Okay. Who (other than somebody who is mentally ill) would point and laugh and say "Karma, asshole!! Life's a beeeeeeeaaaaatch!!!"


----------



## Foxfyre

BDBoop said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they truly do hate liberals, aka people they don't even know, and couldn't pick out of a line-up, I'm guessing they are mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What people are expressing, is that leftists constitute a clear and present danger to their way of life.
> 
> The sharp turn left of the democrats with the open hostility toward individual liberty and basic concepts of privacy, evoke strong emotions in many people. The campaign to mislabel the philosophy involved has been largely successful, so despite the fact that democrats have nothing to do with liberal, people equate the two.
> 
> When people say that they hate liberals, they mean they hate the authoritarian concentration of centralized power in the hands of Washington oligarchs who are crushing the life out of the nation with an iron boot to our neck.
> 
> And yes, I do mean Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understandable you mean Obama. But when people focus THAT hate on people here, then there's a problem. And I am not talking about the bulk of the board. I believe they say it, they may even believe it - but that's not thinking. That's reactionary. If anybody who shows their ass here on a daily basis popped up and said "So the doctor says ... I got six months." Right? Okay. Who (other than somebody who is mentally ill) would point and laugh and say "Karma, asshole!! Life's a beeeeeeeaaaaatch!!!"
Click to expand...


I'm not connecting your example with the issue though.

Earlier this year we buried a family member who drank himself to death.  Though he died way too young, he accomplished some good things in his lifetime and he was loved and his passing was and is mourned.   And nobody laughed and said "Karma" or anything like that.  Some dealt with it, however, by pushing the reason for his too early death out of their minds and focused on the good.  And some of us are more realistic and know that had he made different choices or if he had accepted the counsel of those who would have helped him learn how to stop doing such a destructive thing to himself, he likely would have live to a ripe old age..

His situation was not a six-months-to-live kind of thing that too many don't know what caused it or could have known how not to prevent it.  His six-months-to-live was a failure to do what he had to do to continue to live.

In Obama's situation he has full ability to choose.  He can choose listen to those who will encourage him to continue on the current destructive path for our country.  Or he can choose to listen to those who counsel him to change course and stop doing what is destructive to the country.  He isn't confronted with a six-months-to-live scenario.   But he is possessed of a power in which he can make a positive or negative difference.   He does not have ability to make no difference.


----------



## BDBoop

Foxfyre said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What people are expressing, is that leftists constitute a clear and present danger to their way of life.
> 
> The sharp turn left of the democrats with the open hostility toward individual liberty and basic concepts of privacy, evoke strong emotions in many people. The campaign to mislabel the philosophy involved has been largely successful, so despite the fact that democrats have nothing to do with liberal, people equate the two.
> 
> When people say that they hate liberals, they mean they hate the authoritarian concentration of centralized power in the hands of Washington oligarchs who are crushing the life out of the nation with an iron boot to our neck.
> 
> And yes, I do mean Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Understandable you mean Obama. But when people focus THAT hate on people here, then there's a problem. And I am not talking about the bulk of the board. I believe they say it, they may even believe it - but that's not thinking. That's reactionary. If anybody who shows their ass here on a daily basis popped up and said "So the doctor says ... I got six months." Right? Okay. Who (other than somebody who is mentally ill) would point and laugh and say "Karma, asshole!! Life's a beeeeeeeaaaaatch!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not connecting your example with the issue though.
> 
> Earlier this year we buried a family member who drank himself to death.  Though he died way too young, he accomplished some good things in his lifetime and he was loved and his passing was and is mourned.   And nobody laughed and said "Karma" or anything like that.  Some dealt with it, however, by pushing the reason for his too early death out of their minds and focused on the good.  And some of us are more realistic and know that had he made different choices or if he had accepted the counsel of those who would have helped him learn how to stop doing such a destructive thing to himself, he likely would have live to a ripe old age..
> 
> His situation was not a six-months-to-live kind of thing that too many don't know what caused it or could have known how not to prevent it.  His six-months-to-live was a failure to do what he had to do to continue to live.
> 
> In Obama's situation he has full ability to choose.  He can choose listen to those who will encourage him to continue on the current destructive path for our country.  Or he can choose to listen to those who counsel him to change course and stop doing what is destructive to the country.  He isn't confronted with a six-months-to-live scenario.   But he is possessed of a power in which he can make a positive or negative difference.   He does not have ability to make no difference.
Click to expand...


I can understand why you're not connecting, you took it in a totally different direction than what I was saying.

I am saying fine. Hate Obama. NOT a problem. But hate people on here? Really?? When you couldn't pick them out of the proverbial lineup? That's just crazy. And if someone on this board says I have six months to live, and you tell them they deserve to die, then that is proof that you have to be a crazy person to hate a nameless, faceless internet denizen.

Does that make more sense.


----------



## Foxfyre

BDBoop said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Understandable you mean Obama. But when people focus THAT hate on people here, then there's a problem. And I am not talking about the bulk of the board. I believe they say it, they may even believe it - but that's not thinking. That's reactionary. If anybody who shows their ass here on a daily basis popped up and said "So the doctor says ... I got six months." Right? Okay. Who (other than somebody who is mentally ill) would point and laugh and say "Karma, asshole!! Life's a beeeeeeeaaaaatch!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not connecting your example with the issue though.
> 
> Earlier this year we buried a family member who drank himself to death.  Though he died way too young, he accomplished some good things in his lifetime and he was loved and his passing was and is mourned.   And nobody laughed and said "Karma" or anything like that.  Some dealt with it, however, by pushing the reason for his too early death out of their minds and focused on the good.  And some of us are more realistic and know that had he made different choices or if he had accepted the counsel of those who would have helped him learn how to stop doing such a destructive thing to himself, he likely would have live to a ripe old age..
> 
> His situation was not a six-months-to-live kind of thing that too many don't know what caused it or could have known how not to prevent it.  His six-months-to-live was a failure to do what he had to do to continue to live.
> 
> In Obama's situation he has full ability to choose.  He can choose listen to those who will encourage him to continue on the current destructive path for our country.  Or he can choose to listen to those who counsel him to change course and stop doing what is destructive to the country.  He isn't confronted with a six-months-to-live scenario.   But he is possessed of a power in which he can make a positive or negative difference.   He does not have ability to make no difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can understand why you're not connecting, you took it in a totally different direction than what I was saying.
> 
> I am saying fine. Hate Obama. NOT a problem. But hate people on here? Really?? When you couldn't pick them out of the proverbial lineup? That's just crazy. And if someone on this board says I have six months to live, and you tell them they deserve to die, then that is proof that you have to be a crazy person to hate a nameless, faceless internet denizen.
> 
> Does that make more sense.
Click to expand...


Okay that does make sense.  Like I said, I just wasn't connecting the example you used.

I can accept the juvenile taunts like "eat shit and die!" stuff because you know it does not mean literal shit or literal death.   But yes, I have myself witnessed members here so cruel, so hateful, so totally devoid of human compassion that they would wish death  on others, most especially those struggling with life threatening conditions.   Or one member who was told that her mentally challenged son should just be allowed to die.

I don't care what a person's political beliefs or ideology is, that is evil.

But then I lately find myself more and more beating the drum for tolerance of what people believe.  It takes a whole lot of energy and mental/emotional resources to condemn, blame, accuse, judge, and hate people for who they are or what they do that affects nobody but themselves.   And to hate them for who they are is the 180 degree opposite of tolerance.

But to hate or despise what they do when it unnecessarily or intentionally hurts others or us?  That is productive hate.  And we should encourage more of it.


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> But to hate or despise what they do when it unnecessarily hurts others or us?  That is productive hate.  And we should encourage more of it.


Heh... indeed. I certainly move to the 'fuck off and die' mindset after reading the coporatist shills' posts (still) trying to sell ACA. Especially when they're deliberately making dishonest arguments.


----------



## Uncensored2008

BDBoop said:


> I can understand why you're not connecting, you took it in a totally different direction than what I was saying.
> 
> I am saying fine. Hate Obama. NOT a problem. But hate people on here? Really?? When you couldn't pick them out of the proverbial lineup? That's just crazy. And if someone on this board says I have six months to live, and you tell them they deserve to die, then that is proof that you have to be a crazy person to hate a nameless, faceless internet denizen.
> 
> Does that make more sense.



I reiterate, the hatred is against cancerous ideas - not against people.


----------



## BDBoop

Uncensored2008 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why you're not connecting, you took it in a totally different direction than what I was saying.
> 
> I am saying fine. Hate Obama. NOT a problem. But hate people on here? Really?? When you couldn't pick them out of the proverbial lineup? That's just crazy. And if someone on this board says I have six months to live, and you tell them they deserve to die, then that is proof that you have to be a crazy person to hate a nameless, faceless internet denizen.
> 
> Does that make more sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I reiterate, the hatred is against cancerous ideas - not against people.
Click to expand...


Yes. But a fair number of people on this board are practicing transference.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But to hate or despise what they do when it unnecessarily hurts others or us?  That is productive hate.  And we should encourage more of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Heh... indeed. I certainly move to the 'fuck off and die' mindset after reading the coporatist shills' posts (still) trying to sell ACA. Especially when they're deliberately making dishonest arguments.
Click to expand...


That's a good example.  And yes, we can legitimately hate the way our government has quite literally and intentionally misled us re the ACA and that it continues to do so.   Every freedom loving person should be condemning that as well as condemning the almost daily  exceptions and exemptions being doled out to keep it all from blowing up before the current professional politicians and bureaucrats can get themselves clear of the fall out.

Even the President is mostly avoiding the subject these days.

I do not, however, hate our less well informed, less coherant brothers and sisters at USMB who genuinely do believe government healthcare is the right way to go.   I hate how they have been hoodwinked.  I hate how they are completely unwilling to even look at the history of government healthcare along and how they are unwilling to even consider how a free market could and would be better.

And I hate the dishonest, ad hominem hate speech that suggests because I DO believe a free market has been and still could and would be better, I want to deny people healthcare, want to push granny off the cliff, yadda yadda.


----------



## American_Jihad

Bfgrn said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see, a typical conservative troll, infested with FEAR.
> 
> Go run home to mommy and hide under the bed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical progressive/liberal response from a cocksucking plagiarizer that's got nothing...
> 
> By the way liberals will be hiding under the bed when the time comes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No plagiarism pea brain. The key narrative was Robert Frost's who I gave credit to. You are just confused, and stupid. A typical right wing turd.
Click to expand...







jpp...​


----------



## Bfgrn

Uncensored2008 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they truly do hate liberals, aka people they don't even know, and couldn't pick out of a line-up, I'm guessing they are mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What people are expressing, is that leftists constitute a clear and present danger to their way of life.
> 
> The sharp turn left of the democrats with the open hostility toward individual liberty and basic concepts of privacy, evoke strong emotions in many people. The campaign to mislabel the philosophy involved has been largely successful, so despite the fact that democrats have nothing to do with liberal, people equate the two.
> 
> When people say that they hate liberals, they mean they hate the authoritarian concentration of centralized power in the hands of Washington oligarchs who are crushing the life out of the nation with an iron boot to our neck.
> 
> And yes, I do mean Obama.
Click to expand...


You live in an upside down world. BOTH parties have moved to the right over the last 30 years. The health care bill shows just how little power the liberals and progressives have in the Democratic Party. Did we get single payer? No. Did we get even a public option? No. Did we get the 1993 Republican/ Heritage Foundation/ American Enterprise Institute bill...YES we did.


----------



## Bfgrn

American_Jihad said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical progressive/liberal response from a cocksucking plagiarizer that's got nothing...
> 
> By the way liberals will be hiding under the bed when the time comes...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No plagiarism pea brain. The key narrative was Robert Frost's who I gave credit to. You are just confused, and stupid. A typical right wing turd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jpp...​
Click to expand...


Game, set, match Bfgrn...


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But to hate or despise what they do when it unnecessarily hurts others or us?  That is productive hate.  And we should encourage more of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Heh... indeed. I certainly move to the 'fuck off and die' mindset after reading the coporatist shills' posts (still) trying to sell ACA. Especially when they're deliberately making dishonest arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a good example.  And yes, we can legitimately hate the way our government has quite literally and intentionally misled us re the ACA and that it continues to do so.   Every freedom loving person should be condemning that as well as condemning the almost daily  exceptions and exemptions being doled out to keep it all from blowing up before the current professional politicians and bureaucrats can get themselves clear of the fall out.
> 
> Even the President is mostly avoiding the subject these days.
> 
> I do not, however, hate our less well informed, less coherant brothers and sisters at USMB who genuinely do believe government healthcare is the right way to go.   I hate how they have been hoodwinked.  I hate how they are completely unwilling to even look at the history of government healthcare along and how they are unwilling to even consider how a free market could and would be better.
> 
> And I hate the dishonest, ad hominem hate speech that suggests because I DO believe a free market has been and still could and would be better, I want to deny people healthcare, want to push granny off the cliff, yadda yadda.
Click to expand...


Totally false. Almost every other industrial nation has government health care. They spends half of what we spend per capita, have better mortality rates and outcomes.

America is at the bottom of the heap. The bottom four countries  Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland  all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

That is the core of the problem I have with conservatism, you people can't accept the truth. There is NO WAY of solving our problems if you start from a false premise.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bfgrn said:


> You live in an upside down world. BOTH parties have moved to the right over the last 30 years.



If "to the right" you mean toward the philosophies and programs of Karl Marx, Vlad Lenin, and Josef Stalin, then I suppose so.

Of course, you are also the folks redefining "liberal" to support a centrally managed and planned economy, so we need to keep in perspective the gross bastardization of language involved.



> The health care bill shows just how little power the liberals and progressives have in the Democratic Party. Did we get single payer? No.



No liberal would seek to take the freedom over ones health away from the individual and hand it to the central authority, thousands of miles away.

Further demonstrating that you have nothing in common with liberals, you are leftists, authoritarians seeking control of the details of the lives of commoners by the bureaucrats and the oligarchs controlling them.

Can you imagine Madison declaring "We hold these truths to be self-evident, our rulers know better than we, what the appropriate care of our health should be."

Madison, surely not - but it is precisely what one would expect of Pol Pot.



> Did we get even a public option? No. Did we get the 1993 Republican/ Heritage Foundation/ American Enterprise Institute bill...YES we did.



Public opinion, surely you jest. The public was SQUARELY against Obama's fascist care, but the democrats controlled congress, forced it down the gullet of a resistant people - such is the way of authoritarians.


----------



## Immanuel

BDBoop said:


> If they truly do hate liberals, aka people they don't even know, and couldn't pick out of a line-up, I'm guessing they are mentally ill.



Welcome back BDB, but in this thread, based upon your statement that those who hate people they couldn't pick out of a line-up are mentally ill, there are many more liberals who are mentally ill than there are conservatives.  Seems to me that hate for those who do not agree with you is more of a liberal trait than a conservative one.

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You live in an upside down world. BOTH parties have moved to the right over the last 30 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If "to the right" you mean toward the philosophies and programs of Karl Marx, Vlad Lenin, and Josef Stalin, then I suppose so.
> 
> Of course, you are also the folks redefining "liberal" to support a centrally managed and planned economy, so we need to keep in perspective the gross bastardization of language involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The health care bill shows just how little power the liberals and progressives have in the Democratic Party. Did we get single payer? No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No liberal would seek to take the freedom over ones health away from the individual and hand it to the central authority, thousands of miles away.
> 
> Further demonstrating that you have nothing in common with liberals, you are leftists, authoritarians seeking control of the details of the lives of commoners by the bureaucrats and the oligarchs controlling them.
> 
> Can you imagine Madison declaring "We hold these truths to be self-evident, our rulers know better than we, what the appropriate care of our health should be."
> 
> Madison, surely not - but it is precisely what one would expect of Pol Pot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did we get even a public option? No. Did we get the 1993 Republican/ Heritage Foundation/ American Enterprise Institute bill...YES we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public opinion, surely you jest. The public was SQUARELY against Obama's fascist care, but the democrats controlled congress, forced it down the gullet of a resistant people - such is the way of authoritarians.
Click to expand...


Both parties have moved to the right, towards corporatism and away from government of the people, by the people and for the people. Special interests run our government. And those same special interests are the ones who set up the right wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which is nothing but the propaganda arm of those special interests.

It is amazing you right wing turds make it across the street without getting flattened. You only look ONE way.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Democrats moved right? Do liberals believe any of the shit they post?


----------



## Wolfsister77

Immanuel said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they truly do hate liberals, aka people they don't even know, and couldn't pick out of a line-up, I'm guessing they are mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome back BDB, but in this thread, based upon your statement that those who hate people they couldn't pick out of a line-up are mentally ill, there are many more liberals who are mentally ill than there are conservatives.  Seems to me that hate for those who do not agree with you is more of a liberal trait than a conservative one.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Have you looked at the posts the Conservatives here make and say about the Liberals? Just based on that alone, they are the intolerant ones.

Most (not all) are completely intolerant of anybody who has different beliefs than they do. 

They make condescending and degrading comments about Liberals on a regular basis and have no trouble with name calling, labeling, or grouping them all under some umbrella they created to describe Liberals. 

And then they run around thanking and patting each other on the back about it like they are clever or something.

I'm sure they rep the crap out of each other for it too.

Birds of a feather as the saying goes.

So it always blows my mind to see people say that Liberals are more intolerant of Conservatives here than vice versa.

I'm not saying there are no Liberals that use insults, belittle, or label but if you didn't see it from the Conservative side and how much more frequent it is there, you'd have to be blind.


----------



## American_Jihad

Bfgrn said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No plagiarism pea brain. The key narrative was Robert Frost's who I gave credit to. You are just confused, and stupid. A typical right wing turd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jpp...​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Game, set, match *Bfgrn*...
Click to expand...


You're a *Big fucking goofy ridiculas nescience*, I see on the net you like to peel off yo skin WTF is that all about...


----------



## Wolfsister77

CrusaderFrank said:


> Democrats moved right? Do liberals believe any of the shit they post?



Obama is not very Liberal. He's pretty much a moderate Democrat.


----------



## dblack

CrusaderFrank said:


> Do liberals believe any of the shit they post?



Many of them do. But the hardcore partisans (conservatives too) don't really seem to. To them, it's just team sports.


----------



## RKMBrown

wolfsister77 said:


> crusaderfrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> democrats moved right? Do liberals believe any of the shit they post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> obama is not very liberal. He's pretty much a moderate democrat.
Click to expand...


rofl


----------



## BDBoop

Immanuel said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they truly do hate liberals, aka people they don't even know, and couldn't pick out of a line-up, I'm guessing they are mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome back BDB, but in this thread, based upon your statement that those who hate people they couldn't pick out of a line-up are mentally ill, there are many more liberals who are mentally ill than there are conservatives.  Seems to me that hate for those who do not agree with you is more of a liberal trait than a conservative one.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I didn't say it was either, Immie.


----------



## Immanuel

Wolfsister77 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they truly do hate liberals, aka people they don't even know, and couldn't pick out of a line-up, I'm guessing they are mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome back BDB, but in this thread, based upon your statement that those who hate people they couldn't pick out of a line-up are mentally ill, there are many more liberals who are mentally ill than there are conservatives.  Seems to me that hate for those who do not agree with you is more of a liberal trait than a conservative one.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you looked at the posts the Conservatives here make and say about the Liberals? Just based on that alone, they are the intolerant ones.
> 
> Most (not all) are completely intolerant of anybody who has different beliefs than they do.
> 
> They make condescending and degrading comments about Liberals on a regular basis and have no trouble with name calling, labeling, or grouping them all under some umbrella they created to describe Liberals.
> 
> And then they run around thanking and patting each other on the back about it like they are clever or something.
> 
> I'm sure they rep the crap out of each other for it too.
> 
> Birds of a feather as the saying goes.
> 
> So it always blows my mind to see people say that Liberals are more intolerant of Conservatives here than vice versa.
> 
> I'm not saying there are no Liberals that use insults, belittle, or label but if you didn't see it from the Conservative side and how much more frequent it is there, you'd have to be blind.
Click to expand...


Have you read *any* liberal posts? No? Didn't think so.

Let me correct that, because we are not talking about the moderates on either side and you would be one of those, but if you read the extremes the "progressives" are 20 times worse than the "neo-cons" and the neos are very bad, but they don't come close to the ones on the left.

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn

American_Jihad said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jpp...​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Game, set, match *Bfgrn*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a Big fucking goofy ridiculas nescience, *I see on the net you like to peel off yo skin* WTF is that all about...
Click to expand...


WTF are you talking about?


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The onus is on ME to prove YOUR theory because you forgot to justify it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My OPINION is based on your posts.
> 
> You claim, it is a misinterpretation of the real Pogo. So yes, the onus is upon you to prove your contention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another what they call "epic fail" from the Master of Ipse Dixit.  No link, no quote, no evidence no nuttin'.
> 
> Good to know there are some things we can always count on.
> 
> You're a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> So, you think that excessive use of smilies makes up for your utter lack of content?
Click to expand...


The lack of content is entirely yours.  I didn't make a claim; _you_ did.  And then after two days of challenge to come up with examples to back it up, you failed to find even a single one.  That makes you dishonest.

But certainly not a Liberal.


----------



## American_Jihad

Bfgrn said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Game, set, match *Bfgrn*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a *Big fucking goofy ridiculas nescience*, I see on the net you like to peel off yo skin WTF is that all about...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?
Click to expand...


Try googling Bfgrn "Big fucking goofy ridiculas nescience" you'll find it, only 31,000 results...


----------



## Bfgrn

American_Jihad said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a *Big fucking goofy ridiculas nescience*, I see on the net you like to peel off yo skin WTF is that all about...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try googling Bfgrn "Big fucking goofy ridiculas nescience" you'll find it, only 31,000 results...
Click to expand...


My screen name is a combination of where I grew up in New York and where I lived in Florida

Update, for shits and giggles I 'googled' it...

Results:

1) Why do people hate Liberals? - Page 165 - US Message Board ...


----------



## JimBowie1958

CrusaderFrank said:


> Democrats moved right? Do liberals believe any of the shit they post?



Of course not.

Does that mean that they will stop spreading lies?

Of course not.


----------



## Bfgrn

JimBowie1958 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats moved right? Do liberals believe any of the shit they post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Does that mean that they will stop spreading lies?
> 
> Of course not.
Click to expand...


You call yourself "Old Fogey" and you don't know that is true?

This platform is NOT the Democratic Party platform...











Excerpt from:
Republican Party Platform of 1956
August 20, 1956


Our Government was created by the people for all the people, and it must serve no less a purpose.

The Republican Party was formed 100 years ago to preserve the Nation's devotion to these ideals.

On its Centennial, the Republican Party again calls to the minds of all Americans the great truth first spoken by Abraham Lincoln: "The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."

Our great President Dwight D. Eisenhower has counseled us further: "In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative.

"We shall ever build anew, that our children and their children, without distinction because of race, creed or color, may know the blessings of our free land.

We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs-expansion of social security-broadened coverage in unemployment insurance - improved housing- and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.

*Labor*
"Under the Republican Administration, as our country has prospered, so have its people. This is as it should be, for as President Eisenhower said: "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country...they are America."

The Eisenhower Administration has brought to our people the highest employment, the highest wages and the highest standard of living ever enjoyed by any nation. Today there are nearly 67 million men and women at work in the United States, 4 million more than in 1952. Wages have increased substantially over the past 3 1/2 years; but, more important, the American wage earner today can buy more than ever before for himself and his family because his pay check has not been eaten away by rising taxes and soaring prices.

The record of performance of the Republican Administration on behalf of our working men and women goes still further. The Federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers. Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million. The protection of unemployment insurance has been brought to 4 million additional workers. There have been increased workmen's compensation benefits for longshoremen and harbor workers, increased retirement benefits for railroad employees, and wage increases and improved welfare and pension plans for federal employees.

In addition, the Eisenhower Administration has enforced more vigorously and effectively than ever before, the laws which protect the working standards of our people.

Workers have benefited by the progress which has been made in carrying out the programs and principles set forth in the 1952 Republican platform. All workers have gained and unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 millions.

Furthermore, the process of free collective bargaining has been strengthened by the insistence of this Administration that labor and management settle their differences at the bargaining table without the intervention of the Government. This policy has brought to our country an unprecedented period of labor-management peace and understanding...

Republican action created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare as the first new Federal department in 40 years, to raise the continuing consideration of these problems for the first time to the highest council of Government, the President's Cabinet.... We have supported the distribution of free vaccine to protect millions of children against dreaded polio.

Republican leadership has enlarged Federal assistance for construction of hospitals, emphasizing low-cost care of chronic diseases and the special problems of older persons, and increased Federal aid for medical care of the needy.

We have asked the largest increase in research funds ever sought in one year to intensify attacks on cancer, mental illness, heart disease and other dread diseases."

*http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25838*


Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
*Barry Goldwater (R)  Late Senator & Father of the Conservative movement*


----------



## Wolfsister77

Republicans have moved so far to the right from what they used to be that they are pretty much a right wing party now.

The Democrats haven't changed much and Obama is very moderate but the Republicans won't recognize that because of how far right they have moved.


----------



## editec

Nobody familiar with the REPUBLICAN PARTY of the 1950s is going deny that the GOP has moved from a formerly nationalistic party to the extremer edges of what is clearly becoming an ANTI-NATIONALIST party.


----------



## dblack

editec said:


> Nobody familiar with the REPUBLICAN PARTY of the 1950s is going deny that the GOP has moved from a formerly nationalistic party to the extremer edges of what is clearly becoming an ANTI-NATIONALIST party.



That's welcome news if true, though it seems the 'jury is still out' on that one. Nationalism and the neo-con ethic are still pretty ingrained in the party hierarchy. We'll have to see how it pans out I guess.


----------



## dblack

Wolfsister77 said:


> Republicans have moved so far to the right from what they used to be that they are pretty much a right wing party now.
> 
> The Democrats haven't changed much and Obama is very moderate but the Republicans won't recognize that because of how far right they have moved.



We create so much confusion for ourselves when we try to force real phenomena into our abstract mappings. Left/right doesn't fit what's going on. The Republicans haven't moved 'right' (I challenge anyone to even explain, coherently, what that even means). And the Democrats _have_ changed - Obama is anything but 'moderate'. But, as police-state corporatist, he's clearly no progressive dreamboat.

The anti-authoritarian backlash currently driving the libertarian wing of the Republican party is particularly problematic for those who want to see everything in terms of left and right. They're dismissed as liberal hippies by old guard conservatives, and as 'hard-right' conservatives by the liberal establishment. Neither is accurate, of course, but some people simply won't let go of the one-dimensional left/right spectrum.

In many ways, it seems the primary political axis in US politics is turning ninety degrees, toward a new mapping that prompts alliances between progressives and libertarians in opposing the Pelosi/Boehner (authoritarian) wing of the Republicrat establishment. I read that Juiian Assange has stated that the only hope for reforming US policy is the libertarian wing of the GOP. That ought to tell us something weird is going on with our political alignments.


----------



## koshergrl

See the meme "Republicans have moved to the right" is an example not only of the pathetic brainwashing of today's progressives...its shows how poorly educated they are and how clueless of history.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans have moved so far to the right from what they used to be that they are pretty much a right wing party now.
> 
> The Democrats haven't changed much and Obama is very moderate but the Republicans won't recognize that because of how far right they have moved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We create so much confusion for ourselves when we try to force real phenomena into our abstract mappings. Left/right doesn't fit what's going on. The Republicans haven't moved 'right' (I challenge anyone to even explain, coherently, what that even means). And the Democrats _have_ changed - Obama is anything but 'moderate'. But, as police-state corporatist, he's clearly no progressive dreamboat.
> 
> The anti-authoritarian backlash currently driving the libertarian wing of the Republican party is particularly problematic for those who want to see everything in terms of left and right. They're dismissed as liberal hippies by old guard conservatives, and as 'hard-right' conservatives by the liberal establishment. Neither is accurate, of course, but some people simply won't let go of the one-dimensional left/right spectrum.
> 
> In many ways, it seems the primary political axis in US politics is turning ninety degrees, toward a new mapping that prompts alliances between progressives and libertarians in opposing the Pelosi/Boehner (authoritarian) wing of the Republicrat establishment. I read that Juiian Assange has stated that the only hope for reforming US policy is the libertarian wing of the GOP. That ought to tell us something weird is going on with our political alignments.
Click to expand...

QFT
There are a great many issues.  No one party holds the right answer for everyone for every issue.  Each issue could be seen as a pivot point and/or litmus test.  One party has leaders that discriminate against whites, rich, and individualists...  the other has leaders that discriminate against gays and socialists.


----------



## Bfgrn

koshergrl said:


> See the meme "Republicans have moved to the right" is an example not only of the pathetic brainwashing of today's progressives...its shows how poorly educated they are and how clueless of history.



Post 2475 - http://www.usmessageboard.com/7715766-post2475.html


----------



## Wolfsister77

dblack said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans have moved so far to the right from what they used to be that they are pretty much a right wing party now.
> 
> The Democrats haven't changed much and Obama is very moderate but the Republicans won't recognize that because of how far right they have moved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We create so much confusion for ourselves when we try to force real phenomena into our abstract mappings. Left/right doesn't fit what's going on. The Republicans haven't moved 'right' (I challenge anyone to even explain, coherently, what that even means). And the Democrats _have_ changed - Obama is anything but 'moderate'. But, as police-state corporatist, he's clearly no progressive dreamboat.
> 
> The anti-authoritarian backlash currently driving the libertarian wing of the Republican party is particularly problematic for those who want to see everything in terms of left and right. They're dismissed as liberal hippies by old guard conservatives, and as 'hard-right' conservatives by the liberal establishment. Neither is accurate, of course, but some people simply won't let go of the one-dimensional left/right spectrum.
> 
> In many ways, it seems the primary political axis in US politics is turning ninety degrees, toward a new mapping that prompts alliances between progressives and libertarians in opposing the Pelosi/Boehner (authoritarian) wing of the Republicrat establishment. I read that Juiian Assange has stated that the only hope for reforming US policy is the libertarian wing of the GOP. That ought to tell us something weird is going on with our political alignments.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with you. Good points. Left/Right is pretty much what is used to describe the parties and ideologies right now. Is it overly simplified-yes. But it is pretty commonly used. It is used quite heavily on this board as well. So stating right/left, Conservative/Liberal-Progressive is widely understood exactly what the person means.


----------



## dblack

Wolfsister77 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans have moved so far to the right from what they used to be that they are pretty much a right wing party now.
> 
> The Democrats haven't changed much and Obama is very moderate but the Republicans won't recognize that because of how far right they have moved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We create so much confusion for ourselves when we try to force real phenomena into our abstract mappings. Left/right doesn't fit what's going on. The Republicans haven't moved 'right' (I challenge anyone to even explain, coherently, what that even means). And the Democrats _have_ changed - Obama is anything but 'moderate'. But, as police-state corporatist, he's clearly no progressive dreamboat.
> 
> The anti-authoritarian backlash currently driving the libertarian wing of the Republican party is particularly problematic for those who want to see everything in terms of left and right. They're dismissed as liberal hippies by old guard conservatives, and as 'hard-right' conservatives by the liberal establishment. Neither is accurate, of course, but some people simply won't let go of the one-dimensional left/right spectrum.
> 
> In many ways, it seems the primary political axis in US politics is turning ninety degrees, toward a new mapping that prompts alliances between progressives and libertarians in opposing the Pelosi/Boehner (authoritarian) wing of the Republicrat establishment. I read that Juiian Assange has stated that the only hope for reforming US policy is the libertarian wing of the GOP. That ought to tell us something weird is going on with our political alignments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with you. Good points. Left/Right is pretty much what is used to describe the parties and ideologies right now. Is it overly simplified-yes. But it is pretty commonly used. It is used quite heavily on this board as well. So stating right/left, Conservative/Liberal-Progressive is widely understood exactly what the person means.
Click to expand...


It is? So, so where to people like Ron Paul or Glenn Greenwald fit in that dynamic?


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> We create so much confusion for ourselves when we try to force real phenomena into our abstract mappings. Left/right doesn't fit what's going on. The Republicans haven't moved 'right' (I challenge anyone to even explain, coherently, what that even means). And the Democrats _have_ changed - Obama is anything but 'moderate'. But, as police-state corporatist, he's clearly no progressive dreamboat.
> 
> The anti-authoritarian backlash currently driving the libertarian wing of the Republican party is particularly problematic for those who want to see everything in terms of left and right. They're dismissed as liberal hippies by old guard conservatives, and as 'hard-right' conservatives by the liberal establishment. Neither is accurate, of course, but some people simply won't let go of the one-dimensional left/right spectrum.
> 
> In many ways, it seems the primary political axis in US politics is turning ninety degrees, toward a new mapping that prompts alliances between progressives and libertarians in opposing the Pelosi/Boehner (authoritarian) wing of the Republicrat establishment. I read that Juiian Assange has stated that the only hope for reforming US policy is the libertarian wing of the GOP. That ought to tell us something weird is going on with our political alignments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with you. Good points. Left/Right is pretty much what is used to describe the parties and ideologies right now. Is it overly simplified-yes. But it is pretty commonly used. It is used quite heavily on this board as well. So stating right/left, Conservative/Liberal-Progressive is widely understood exactly what the person means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is? So, so where to people like Ron Paul or Glenn Greenwald fit in that dynamic?
Click to expand...


Top right.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wolfsister77 said:


> Have you looked at the posts the Conservatives here make and say about the Liberals? Just based on that alone, they are the intolerant ones.



Unlike the loving things that RDean, bfgrn, Shortbus, Hatewinger, Shallow, Blindboo, G5000, et al - post about conservatives each day?

Funny, a bit of wisdom regarding beam and motes comes to minds.



> Most (not all) are completely intolerant of anybody who has different beliefs than they do.



ROFL

Irony.








> They make condescending and degrading comments about Liberals on a regular basis and have no trouble with name calling, labeling, or grouping them all under some umbrella they created to describe Liberals.



Well shit, ClosedCaption, Hatewinger, Rdean, bfgrn, etc. sure would never do that regarding conservatives.

I mean, that's a nice pile of stone you have, but don't you worry about the glass construction of your house?



> And then they run around thanking and patting each other on the back about it like they are clever or something.
> 
> I'm sure they rep the crap out of each other for it too.



Sallow has rep point above zero.

I rest my case.



> Birds of a feather as the saying goes.
> 
> So it always blows my mind to see people say that Liberals are more intolerant of Conservatives here than vice versa.
> 
> I'm not saying there are no Liberals that use insults, belittle, or label but if you didn't see it from the Conservative side and how much more frequent it is there, you'd have to be blind.




The hate filled left is such a victim..


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wolfsister77 said:


> Obama is not very Liberal. He's pretty much a moderate Democrat.



So, Mao would represent a "centrist," then?


----------



## Uncensored2008

dblack said:


> That's welcome news if true, though it seems the 'jury is still out' on that one. Nationalism and the neo-con ethic are still pretty ingrained in the party hierarchy. We'll have to see how it pans out I guess.



I'm surprised at you.

Where bfgrn is simply a partisan demagogue, posting to either support his shameful party, or slander the hated opposition, I generally view you as rational.

Of course "neo-con" and "nationalist" are contradictory terms. For you to claim the Republicans have "Nationalism and the neo-con ethic are still pretty ingrained" is moronic gobbldiegook. You may as well take the rdean approach and declare them "icky doo doo heads"

Neoconservatism, born of far left Irv Kristol is an international movement, seeking empirical goals and the prominence of multinational concerns - quite the opposite of a nationalist agenda.


----------



## Foxfyre

Because definitions change and are changing all the time, because all political parties these days are entirely self-serving and therefore cannot be associated with any specific ideology,  and because intellectual lightweights are incapable of focusing on concepts but rather understand them only within their perceptions or judgment of people or groups, Republican and Democrat doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot any more. 

I wish I had $5 for every time I have described a principle of modern conservative/classical liberalism only to be told that my observation is absurd because 'the Republicans yadda yadda. . . .' or ". . . .then why do the Republicans support yadda yadda. . . ." or some such.

The Republican Party has not had a modern conservative/classical liberal platform for a very long time now.  And it is as disingenous to point to it as what conservative/classical liberal/libertarian beliefs are as it is disingeuous to condemn the entire Democratic Party as authoritarian Marxists or some such because we can identify a plank or two in their platform that look like that.

Too often we have become a society incapable of separating its biases and prejudices and partisanship from analysis of concepts.  Too often we are unable to think criticially and objectively.

Take such a simple concept of 'unalienable rights'.  The conservative aka classical liberal aka libertarian knows that an unalienable right is that which requires or demands no contibution or participation by any other.  To recognize and respect another's unalienable rights is to believe in ultimate liberty.

But the modern American liberal will not even discuss such a concept because they want to make things like contraceptives, abortion, healthcare, etc. etc. etc. unalienable rights and do not respect as unalienable rights the ability to use certain words or hold certain points of view.

I don't know how we get around that kind of disconnect.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's welcome news if true, though it seems the 'jury is still out' on that one. Nationalism and the neo-con ethic are still pretty ingrained in the party hierarchy. We'll have to see how it pans out I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised at you.
> 
> Where bfgrn is simply a partisan demagogue, posting to either support his shameful party, or slander the hated opposition, I generally view you as rational.
> 
> Of course "neo-con" and "nationalist" are contradictory terms. For you to claim the Republicans have "Nationalism and the neo-con ethic are still pretty ingrained" is moronic gobbldiegook. You may as well take the rdean approach and declare them "icky doo doo heads"
> 
> Neoconservatism, born of far left Irv Kristol is an international movement, seeking empirical goals and the prominence of multinational concerns - quite the opposite of a nationalist agenda.
Click to expand...


PNAC members are a wing of the neo-cons that promote colonialism.   Some folks view nationalism as a putting up walls others view nationalism as expanding influence over other nations still other view nationalism as a marxist would.   It think it would be easy to argue that we don't all use the same definitions for any terms.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's welcome news if true, though it seems the 'jury is still out' on that one. Nationalism and the neo-con ethic are still pretty ingrained in the party hierarchy. We'll have to see how it pans out I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised at you.
> 
> Where bfgrn is simply a partisan demagogue, posting to either support his shameful party, or slander the hated opposition, I generally view you as rational.
> 
> Of course "neo-con" and "nationalist" are contradictory terms. For you to claim the Republicans have "Nationalism and the neo-con ethic are still pretty ingrained" is moronic gobbldiegook. You may as well take the rdean approach and declare them "icky doo doo heads"
> 
> Neoconservatism, born of far left Irv Kristol is an international movement, seeking empirical goals and the prominence of multinational concerns - quite the opposite of a nationalist agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PNAC members are a wing of the neo-cons that promote colonialism.   Some folks view nationalism as a putting up walls others view nationalism as expanding influence over other nations still other view nationalism as a marxist would.   It think it would be easy to argue that we don't all use the same definitions for any terms.
Click to expand...


 I agree that PNAC promotes far more global meddling that I, a classical liberal, deem appropriate, wise, or productive, and for that reason I don't identify with that group.  But colonialism?   I don't see that.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> PNAC members are a wing of the neo-cons that promote colonialism.



Bullshit.

PNAC promotes multinationalism, with large corporations acting outside the purvey of governments. It's a "rape and pillage" mentality, that without question drove the East India Company - but has no desire to build up the host nation. 



> Some folks view nationalism as a putting up walls others view nationalism as expanding influence over other nations still other view nationalism as a marxist would.   It think it would be easy to argue that we don't all use the same definitions for any terms.



Nationalism:

{ loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups }

The polar opposite of what Neocons espouse and support. Neoconservatism is supranational by definition.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> PNAC members are a wing of the neo-cons that promote colonialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> PNAC promotes multinationalism, with large corporations acting outside the purvey of governments. It's a "rape and pillage" mentality, that without question drove the East India Company - but has no desire to build up the host nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some folks view nationalism as a putting up walls others view nationalism as expanding influence over other nations still other view nationalism as a marxist would.   It think it would be easy to argue that we don't all use the same definitions for any terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nationalism:
> 
> { loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups }
> 
> The polar opposite of what Neocons espouse and support. Neoconservatism is supranational by definition.
Click to expand...



Bull shit.  



> The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
> 
> The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.


 Welcome to the Project for the New American Century

neoconservative: 


> 1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
> 2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means


 Neoconservative - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## Wolfsister77

RKMBrown said:


> It think it would be easy to argue that we don't all use the same definitions for any terms.



And I would agree with this.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> PNAC members are a wing of the neo-cons that promote colonialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> PNAC promotes multinationalism, with large corporations acting outside the purvey of governments. It's a "rape and pillage" mentality, that without question drove the East India Company - but has no desire to build up the host nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Nationalism:
> 
> { loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups }
> 
> The polar opposite of what Neocons espouse and support. Neoconservatism is supranational by definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
> 
> The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welcome to the Project for the New American Century
> 
> neoconservative:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
> 2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neoconservative - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...


I see not a shred of colonialism in any of that.  Perhaps that is another word that we define differently.


----------



## numan

Uncensored2008 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people find illusions to be comforting.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly believe that no future generation will again yearn for liberty, for the chance to be the masters of their own lives?
Click to expand...

Given modern methods of brainwashing and social control, I think it is a distinct possibility.

.


----------



## JimBowie1958

God knows I am so glad to have Numan on ignore. I feel...spared.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> Bull shit.



One word retort...

Israel.


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> Given modern methods of brainwashing and social control, I think it is a distinct possibility.
> 
> .



All the methods used in the USSR, still the people demanded liberty.

Obama too shall pass.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> I see not a shred of colonialism in any of that.  Perhaps that is another word that we define differently.


Was it that subtle?



> The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that *American leadership is good* both for America and *for the world*; and *that such leadership requires military strength*, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
> 
> The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to *explain what American world leadership entails*. It will also strive to *rally support for a vigorous* and principled *policy of American international involvement* and to stimulate useful public debate on *foreign* and defense *policy* and *America's role in the world*.


Translation.  Promotes a "foreign policy" for "America's role in the world" as "leader" through the wielding of it's "military strength" that, by the way, currently dominates over every country on the planet.

Colonialism - the policy and practice of a power in extending control over weaker people or areas.  The USA currently maintains > 150 military bases around the world, all in the "defense" of the homeland.  At home however, the Mexicans just walk over the border at will.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see not a shred of colonialism in any of that.  Perhaps that is another word that we define differently.
> 
> 
> 
> Was it that subtle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that *American leadership is good* both for America and *for the world*; and *that such leadership requires military strength*, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
> 
> The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to *explain what American world leadership entails*. It will also strive to *rally support for a vigorous* and principled *policy of American international involvement* and to stimulate useful public debate on *foreign* and defense *policy* and *America's role in the world*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation.  Promotes a "foreign policy" for "America's role in the world" as "leader" through the wielding of it's "military strength" that, by the way, currently dominates over every country on the planet.
> 
> Colonialism - the policy and practice of a power in extending control over weaker people or areas.  The USA currently maintains > 150 military bases around the world, all in the "defense" of the homeland.  At home however, the Mexicans just walk over the border at will.
Click to expand...


Again, nonsense.

The PNAC advocates a leadership role, and the use of military power to assert American goals, but is specific in stating that nations will be sovereign and influenced, not occupied, by America.

PNAC is all about making the world safe for corporate profiteering.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see not a shred of colonialism in any of that.  Perhaps that is another word that we define differently.
> 
> 
> 
> Was it that subtle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that *American leadership is good* both for America and *for the world*; and *that such leadership requires military strength*, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
> 
> The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to *explain what American world leadership entails*. It will also strive to *rally support for a vigorous* and principled *policy of American international involvement* and to stimulate useful public debate on *foreign* and defense *policy* and *America's role in the world*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation.  Promotes a "foreign policy" for "America's role in the world" as "leader" through the wielding of it's "military strength" that, by the way, currently dominates over every country on the planet.
> 
> Colonialism - the policy and practice of a power in extending control over weaker people or areas.  The USA currently maintains > 150 military bases around the world, all in the "defense" of the homeland.  At home however, the Mexicans just walk over the border at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, nonsense.
> 
> The PNAC advocates a leadership role, and the use of military power to assert American goals, but is specific in stating that nations will be sovereign and influenced, not occupied, by America.
> 
> PNAC is all about making the world safe for corporate profiteering.
Click to expand...


So it's just a coincidence then that the PNAC leaders advocated and then started an endless war against Fear in the ME?


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> So it's just a coincidence then that the PNAC leaders advocated and then started an endless war against Fear in the ME?



Huh?

A <> to turquoise....

I am not a fan of the neocons - in case you failed to notice. They are what Rand termed "looters," using government to secure captive markets and exploited labor. 

Still, your conspiracy theory is right off the deep end.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Because definitions change and are changing all the time, because all political parties these days are entirely self-serving and therefore cannot be associated with any specific ideology,  and because intellectual lightweights are incapable of focusing on concepts but rather understand them only within their perceptions or judgment of people or groups, Republican and Democrat doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot any more.
> 
> I wish I had $5 for every time I have described a principle of modern conservative/classical liberalism only to be told that my observation is absurd because 'the Republicans yadda yadda. . . .' or ". . . .then why do the Republicans support yadda yadda. . . ." or some such.
> 
> The Republican Party has not had a modern conservative/classical liberal platform for a very long time now.  And it is as disingenous to point to it as what conservative/classical liberal/libertarian beliefs are as it is disingeuous to condemn the entire Democratic Party as authoritarian Marxists or some such because we can identify a plank or two in their platform that look like that.
> 
> Too often we have become a society incapable of separating its biases and prejudices and partisanship from analysis of concepts.  Too often we are unable to think criticially and objectively.
> 
> Take such a simple concept of 'unalienable rights'.  The conservative aka classical liberal aka libertarian knows that an unalienable right is that which requires or demands no contibution or participation by any other.  To recognize and respect another's unalienable rights is to believe in ultimate liberty.
> 
> But the modern American liberal will not even discuss such a concept because they want to make things like contraceptives, abortion, healthcare, etc. etc. etc. unalienable rights and do not respect as unalienable rights the ability to use certain words or hold certain points of view.
> 
> I don't know how we get around that kind of disconnect.



Health care IS an unalienable right. If conservatives would just face that truth we could create a health care system that is proactive instead of reactive.

No one is turned away when they walk into, are carried into or rushed to a hospital...NO ONE. The problem is people who end up at the emergency room get the most expensive care. And if they can't pay, We, the People pay. Everyone who has insurance is paying more per month because of the 'free riders', over $1,000.00 per year.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because definitions change and are changing all the time, because all political parties these days are entirely self-serving and therefore cannot be associated with any specific ideology,  and because intellectual lightweights are incapable of focusing on concepts but rather understand them only within their perceptions or judgment of people or groups, Republican and Democrat doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot any more.
> 
> I wish I had $5 for every time I have described a principle of modern conservative/classical liberalism only to be told that my observation is absurd because 'the Republicans yadda yadda. . . .' or ". . . .then why do the Republicans support yadda yadda. . . ." or some such.
> 
> The Republican Party has not had a modern conservative/classical liberal platform for a very long time now.  And it is as disingenous to point to it as what conservative/classical liberal/libertarian beliefs are as it is disingeuous to condemn the entire Democratic Party as authoritarian Marxists or some such because we can identify a plank or two in their platform that look like that.
> 
> Too often we have become a society incapable of separating its biases and prejudices and partisanship from analysis of concepts.  Too often we are unable to think criticially and objectively.
> 
> Take such a simple concept of 'unalienable rights'.  The conservative aka classical liberal aka libertarian knows that an unalienable right is that which requires or demands no contibution or participation by any other.  To recognize and respect another's unalienable rights is to believe in ultimate liberty.
> 
> But the modern American liberal will not even discuss such a concept because they want to make things like contraceptives, abortion, healthcare, etc. etc. etc. unalienable rights and do not respect as unalienable rights the ability to use certain words or hold certain points of view.
> 
> I don't know how we get around that kind of disconnect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health care IS an unalienable right. If conservatives would just face that truth we could create a health care system that is proactive instead of reactive.
> 
> No one is turned away when they walk into, are carried into or rushed to a hospital...NO ONE. The problem is people who end up at the emergency room get the most expensive care. And if they can't pay, We, the People pay. Everyone who has insurance is paying more per month because of the 'free riders', over $1,000.00 per year.
Click to expand...


Really so all doctors owe you all the health care you want? They are your slaves?  They must be forced to work at your beckon call?  Maybe if you put your hands on your ears and scream we'll pay for everything you want.  LOL


----------



## koshergrl

Health care is not an inalienable right. The problem with statists is they don't know what constitutes rights in teh first place.

They think they have a right to everything they want. Anything that makes life pleasant.

You don't have a right to that. You have a right to your own life (note..not the lives of others. Your own. You have a right to your own life. Your. Own. Life.) You have a right to move about freely. You have a right to be free...to not belong to another person. You have the RIGHT to PURSUE happiness. You don't have a right to good health. You don't have a right to food. You don't have a right to money. You don't have a right to health care. You have a right to PURSUE happiness via any route bar illegal ones. So if food makes you happy, you have the right to work and buy it. If you have money for it, you have the right to purchase it. Nobody is allowed to prevent you from purchasing it if it's for sale.

You have a right to obtain health care...if health care makes you happy. That means you have the right to work and apply your money towards health care, as you please. Doctors can't DENY you care, if you are able to purchase it. 

But you don't have a right to have your happiness provided to you. Get it through your thick, stupid, grasping, lazy heads.


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because definitions change and are changing all the time, because all political parties these days are entirely self-serving and therefore cannot be associated with any specific ideology,  and because intellectual lightweights are incapable of focusing on concepts but rather understand them only within their perceptions or judgment of people or groups, Republican and Democrat doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot any more.
> 
> I wish I had $5 for every time I have described a principle of modern conservative/classical liberalism only to be told that my observation is absurd because 'the Republicans yadda yadda. . . .' or ". . . .then why do the Republicans support yadda yadda. . . ." or some such.
> 
> The Republican Party has not had a modern conservative/classical liberal platform for a very long time now.  And it is as disingenous to point to it as what conservative/classical liberal/libertarian beliefs are as it is disingeuous to condemn the entire Democratic Party as authoritarian Marxists or some such because we can identify a plank or two in their platform that look like that.
> 
> Too often we have become a society incapable of separating its biases and prejudices and partisanship from analysis of concepts.  Too often we are unable to think criticially and objectively.
> 
> Take such a simple concept of 'unalienable rights'.  The conservative aka classical liberal aka libertarian knows that an unalienable right is that which requires or demands no contibution or participation by any other.  To recognize and respect another's unalienable rights is to believe in ultimate liberty.
> 
> But the modern American liberal will not even discuss such a concept because they want to make things like contraceptives, abortion, healthcare, etc. etc. etc. unalienable rights and do not respect as unalienable rights the ability to use certain words or hold certain points of view.
> 
> I don't know how we get around that kind of disconnect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health care IS an unalienable right. If conservatives would just face that truth we could create a health care system that is proactive instead of reactive.
> 
> No one is turned away when they walk into, are carried into or rushed to a hospital...NO ONE. The problem is people who end up at the emergency room get the most expensive care. And if they can't pay, We, the People pay. Everyone who has insurance is paying more per month because of the 'free riders', over $1,000.00 per year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really so all doctors owe you all the health care you want? They are your slaves?  They must be forced to work at your beckon call?  Maybe if you put your hands on your ears and scream we'll pay for everything you want.  LOL
Click to expand...


Did I say that, or is that what YOU said? The polarized argument (black or white, all or none) is all you conservatives are capable of. Why is that? Are you that immature? 

Doctors are slaves? REALLY. They do NOTHING for free. We now spend almost 20% of our gross domestic product on health care, compared with about half that in most developed countries. Yet in every measurable way, the results our health care system produces are no better and often worse than the outcomes in those countries.

And YES, No one is turned away when they walk into, are carried into or rushed to a hospital...NO ONE.

It is the LAW. Research the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) signed by Ronald Reagan.  It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bfgrn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Health care IS an unalienable right. If conservatives would just face that truth we could create a health care system that is proactive instead of reactive.
> 
> No one is turned away when they walk into, are carried into or rushed to a hospital...NO ONE. The problem is people who end up at the emergency room get the most expensive care. And if they can't pay, We, the People pay. Everyone who has insurance is paying more per month because of the 'free riders', over $1,000.00 per year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really so all doctors owe you all the health care you want? They are your slaves?  They must be forced to work at your beckon call?  Maybe if you put your hands on your ears and scream we'll pay for everything you want.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say that, or is that what YOU said? The polarized argument (black or white, all or none) is all you conservatives are capable of. Why is that? Are you that immature?
> 
> Doctors are slaves? REALLY. They do NOTHING for free. We now spend almost 20% of our gross domestic product on health care, compared with about half that in most developed countries. Yet in every measurable way, the results our health care system produces are no better and often worse than the outcomes in those countries.
> 
> And YES, No one is turned away when they walk into, are carried into or rushed to a hospital...NO ONE.
> 
> It is the LAW. Research the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) signed by Ronald Reagan.  It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions.
Click to expand...


Any that is forced by law to perform any activity for no additional compensation is being forced to do that additional activity for FREE.

It is so fucking simple that even a libtard should be able to get it through their fucking pea brain.


----------



## RKMBrown

JimBowie1958 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really so all doctors owe you all the health care you want? They are your slaves?  They must be forced to work at your beckon call?  Maybe if you put your hands on your ears and scream we'll pay for everything you want.  LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say that, or is that what YOU said? The polarized argument (black or white, all or none) is all you conservatives are capable of. Why is that? Are you that immature?
> 
> Doctors are slaves? REALLY. They do NOTHING for free. We now spend almost 20% of our gross domestic product on health care, compared with about half that in most developed countries. Yet in every measurable way, the results our health care system produces are no better and often worse than the outcomes in those countries.
> 
> And YES, No one is turned away when they walk into, are carried into or rushed to a hospital...NO ONE.
> 
> It is the LAW. Research the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) signed by Ronald Reagan.  It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any that is forced by law to perform any activity for no additional compensation is being forced to do that additional activity for FREE.
> 
> It is so fucking simple that even a libtard should be able to get it through their fucking pea brain.
Click to expand...

Oh they get it.  They just won't admit what they are doing is in fact enslavement of the providers and or payers through theft/re-distributions.

They know that free means, free to them through costs past on to paying customers.  The ultimate goal being to get the funds for their theft from the general revenue of the tax payer.   The intermediate goal being to get the funds from the people who pay for their health care through insurance and out of pocket.  This to drive the costs up for those people till they beg to have it funded by the tax payer.


----------



## Foxfyre

I'm still shaking my head that some are under the delusion that an unalienable right is granted by law.  How badly our education system has failed us, and I blame that on a brand of mushy headed liberalism that has allowed us to arrive at the sorry state we are now in.


----------



## Wolfsister77

My answer is, if I don't feel like I know enough about a subject, is to just do some research on my own. Read the thread, go study what everyone said, and teach myself.

There is no way anybody knows everything about everything and a lot of it is different interpretations and opinions about things.

If I'm incorrect, I'd like to be told how and how I can learn more to correct myself.

Not be told, as so many do and have, that liberals are uneducated and stupid or don't know history as if all liberals are like that. 

How do you know what someone's education level is based solely on a post here?

Assumptions are not a good thing and it really discourages opposing debate.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Foxfyre

Wolfsister77 said:


> My answer is, if I don't feel like I know enough about a subject, is to just do some research on my own. Read the thread, go study what everyone said, and teach myself.
> 
> There is no way anybody knows everything about everything and a lot of it is different interpretations and opinions about things.
> 
> If I'm incorrect, I'd like to be told how and how I can learn more to correct myself.
> 
> Not be told, as so many do and have, that liberals are uneducated and stupid or don't know history as if all liberals are like that.
> 
> How do you know what someone's education level is based solely on a post here?
> 
> Assumptions are not a good thing and it really discourages opposing debate.
> 
> Just my two cents.



I don't know if that was directed at me, but the questions are valid and pertinent.  The assumption that liberals are being accused of being uneducated and stupid is not valid or pertinent.  Being wrong is not the same thing as being uneducated or stupid.   And being wrong about one thing or some things is not the same thing as being wrong about everything.

It doesn't take too much effort to find liberals with PhD's and other impressive credentials stating all the stuff you find liberals posting on message boards.  Sometimes they're right.  Sometimes not.

Now then, if your comments were not directed at me but were directed at those who accuse others of being ignorant, fools, morons, or idiots rather than simply say "I don't agree with that, and here's why. . . .", I agree with you.   Those calling names look a whole lot more uneducated than those they accuse in that case . . . .

unless. . . .

They are just participating in typical message board food fight banter that seems to be sport these days.  In which case no harm, no foul, and kudos for not caring if you look like an idiot.  (Just kidding.)  (It is annoying to those who would like to discuss a topic however.)

My primary quarrel with liberals, apart from the damage I believe they do to our liberties and opportunities and choices, is that most can't or won't argue a concept, but they engage ONLY in accusing or attacking people with opposing views or people who don't share their political party or professed ideology.

I have problems with conservatives for the same reason, but most conservatives CAN at least give a rationale, apart from fuzzy emotionalism, for their convictions and beliefs.


----------



## numan

Bfgrn said:


> No one is turned away when they walk into, are carried into or rushed to a hospital...NO ONE.


That is not true.

.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My answer is, if I don't feel like I know enough about a subject, is to just do some research on my own. Read the thread, go study what everyone said, and teach myself.
> 
> There is no way anybody knows everything about everything and a lot of it is different interpretations and opinions about things.
> 
> If I'm incorrect, I'd like to be told how and how I can learn more to correct myself.
> 
> Not be told, as so many do and have, that liberals are uneducated and stupid or don't know history as if all liberals are like that.
> 
> How do you know what someone's education level is based solely on a post here?
> 
> Assumptions are not a good thing and it really discourages opposing debate.
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if that was directed at me, but the questions are valid and pertinent.  The assumption that liberals are being accused of being uneducated and stupid is not valid or pertinent.  Being wrong is not the same thing as being uneducated or stupid.   And being wrong about one thing or some things is not the same thing as being wrong about everything.
> 
> It doesn't take too much effort to find liberals with PhD's and other impressive credentials stating all the stuff you find liberals posting on message boards.  Sometimes they're right.  Sometimes not.
> 
> Now then, if your comments were not directed at me but were directed at those who accuse others of being ignorant, fools, morons, or idiots rather than simply say "I don't agree with that, and here's why. . . .", I agree with you.   Those calling names look a whole lot more uneducated than those they accuse in that case . . . .
> 
> unless. . . .
> 
> They are just participating in typical message board food fight banter that seems to be sport these days.  In which case no harm, no foul, and kudos for not caring if you look like an idiot.  (Just kidding.)  (It is annoying to those who would like to discuss a topic however.)
> 
> My primary quarrel with liberals, apart from the damage I believe they do to our liberties and opportunities and choices, is that most can't or won't argue a concept, but they engage ONLY in accusing or attacking people with opposing views or people who don't share their political party or professed ideology.
> 
> I have problems with conservatives for the same reason, but most conservatives CAN at least give a rationale, apart from fuzzy emotionalism, for their convictions and beliefs.
Click to expand...


QFT... sometimes it can be fun acting like an idiot. Blow off some steam so to speak.


----------



## numan

Uncensored2008 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given modern methods of brainwashing and social control, I think it is a distinct possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> All the methods used in the USSR, still the people demanded liberty.
Click to expand...

Oh, you are such a child!!

Modern methods of brainwashing are light-years beyond the crude, primitive methods of the Soviets, Nazis and Maoists!!

The most effective brainwashing is below the threshhold of conscious awareness!!

A crude, tongue-tip taste :






.


----------



## koshergrl

Wolfsister77 said:


> My answer is, if I don't feel like I know enough about a subject, is to just do some research on my own. Read the thread, go study what everyone said, and teach myself.
> 
> There is no way anybody knows everything about everything and a lot of it is different interpretations and opinions about things.
> 
> If I'm incorrect, I'd like to be told how and how I can learn more to correct myself.
> 
> Not be told, as so many do and have, that liberals are uneducated and stupid or don't know history as if all liberals are like that.
> 
> How do you know what someone's education level is based solely on a post here?
> 
> Assumptions are not a good thing and it really discourages opposing debate.
> 
> Just my two cents.


 
Good for you.

The fact that multiple posters have no clue what inalienable rights are by definition, and further don't understand the laws that protect their own liberty...and yet who insist on interjecting themselves into the dialogue making demands as if they are afforded those things is indicative of a crap education. People who are knowledgeable can certainly discern the education level in any given topic by the vapidity of the comments made. Those of us who do have a working knowledge of history, and our country's political system, and the government, can absolutely recognize deficiencies in the education of people whose comments make it OBVIOUS that they don't have adequate understanding of the topics they opine on to make an intelligent, educated decision.

The ignorance of the left is pervasive, and it is directly attributable to leftist educators, and a progressive system meant to control, rather than educate, the people.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My answer is, if I don't feel like I know enough about a subject, is to just do some research on my own. Read the thread, go study what everyone said, and teach myself.
> 
> There is no way anybody knows everything about everything and a lot of it is different interpretations and opinions about things.
> 
> If I'm incorrect, I'd like to be told how and how I can learn more to correct myself.
> 
> Not be told, as so many do and have, that liberals are uneducated and stupid or don't know history as if all liberals are like that.
> 
> How do you know what someone's education level is based solely on a post here?
> 
> Assumptions are not a good thing and it really discourages opposing debate.
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if that was directed at me, but the questions are valid and pertinent.  The assumption that liberals are being accused of being uneducated and stupid is not valid or pertinent.  Being wrong is not the same thing as being uneducated or stupid.   And being wrong about one thing or some things is not the same thing as being wrong about everything.
> 
> It doesn't take too much effort to find liberals with PhD's and other impressive credentials stating all the stuff you find liberals posting on message boards.  Sometimes they're right.  Sometimes not.
> 
> Now then, if your comments were not directed at me but were directed at those who accuse others of being ignorant, fools, morons, or idiots rather than simply say "I don't agree with that, and here's why. . . .", I agree with you.   Those calling names look a whole lot more uneducated than those they accuse in that case . . . .
> 
> unless. . . .
> 
> They are just participating in typical message board food fight banter that seems to be sport these days.  In which case no harm, no foul, and kudos for not caring if you look like an idiot.  (Just kidding.)  (It is annoying to those who would like to discuss a topic however.)
> 
> My primary quarrel with liberals, apart from the damage I believe they do to our liberties and opportunities and choices, is that most can't or won't argue a concept, but they engage ONLY in accusing or attacking people with opposing views or people who don't share their political party or professed ideology.
> 
> I have problems with conservatives for the same reason, but most conservatives CAN at least give a rationale, apart from fuzzy emotionalism, for their convictions and beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> QFT... sometimes it can be fun acting like an idiot. Blow off some steam so to speak.
Click to expand...


Yeah, when it is engaged in as harmless sport, again no harm, no fou and no doubt is fun for manyl. . . .BUT. . . .it still is annoying when it completely derails a thread and makes having a serious discussion impossible.  Which it so often does.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if that was directed at me, but the questions are valid and pertinent.  The assumption that liberals are being accused of being uneducated and stupid is not valid or pertinent.  Being wrong is not the same thing as being uneducated or stupid.   And being wrong about one thing or some things is not the same thing as being wrong about everything.
> 
> It doesn't take too much effort to find liberals with PhD's and other impressive credentials stating all the stuff you find liberals posting on message boards.  Sometimes they're right.  Sometimes not.
> 
> Now then, if your comments were not directed at me but were directed at those who accuse others of being ignorant, fools, morons, or idiots rather than simply say "I don't agree with that, and here's why. . . .", I agree with you.   Those calling names look a whole lot more uneducated than those they accuse in that case . . . .
> 
> unless. . . .
> 
> They are just participating in typical message board food fight banter that seems to be sport these days.  In which case no harm, no foul, and kudos for not caring if you look like an idiot.  (Just kidding.)  (It is annoying to those who would like to discuss a topic however.)
> 
> My primary quarrel with liberals, apart from the damage I believe they do to our liberties and opportunities and choices, is that most can't or won't argue a concept, but they engage ONLY in accusing or attacking people with opposing views or people who don't share their political party or professed ideology.
> 
> I have problems with conservatives for the same reason, but most conservatives CAN at least give a rationale, apart from fuzzy emotionalism, for their convictions and beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QFT... sometimes it can be fun acting like an idiot. Blow off some steam so to speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, when it is engaged in as harmless sport, again no harm, no fou and no doubt is fun for manyl. . . .BUT. . . .it still is annoying when it completely derails a thread and makes having a serious discussion impossible.  Which it so often does.
Click to expand...

Well if you are on the left, then all you have is derailing by name calling and such, as there is no reasoning to support their policies.


----------



## Wolfsister77

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> QFT... sometimes it can be fun acting like an idiot. Blow off some steam so to speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, when it is engaged in as harmless sport, again no harm, no fou and no doubt is fun for manyl. . . .BUT. . . .it still is annoying when it completely derails a thread and makes having a serious discussion impossible.  Which it so often does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if you are on the left, then all you have is derailing by name calling and such, as there is no reasoning to support their policies.
Click to expand...


How do you know this?


----------



## Foxfyre

Wolfsister77 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, when it is engaged in as harmless sport, again no harm, no fou and no doubt is fun for manyl. . . .BUT. . . .it still is annoying when it completely derails a thread and makes having a serious discussion impossible.  Which it so often does.
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you are on the left, then all you have is derailing by name calling and such, as there is no reasoning to support their policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know this?
Click to expand...


While RKM's statement was more perjorative than I would have phrased it, sadly he does have a point.  Again and again and again I have challenged leftists/progressives/modern liberals here at USMB and on numerous other boards to defend a socioeconomic or political concept - ANY concept - without naming or accusing or blaming or deferring to what another person, group, or political party did.  In other words, defend the concept on its own merit without referencing anybody.

To date, not one--count them, not one!--has taken me up on that challenge.  Those who claim they did so will invariably blame, accuse, or negatively refer to some person, group, or poliical party.  They simply cannot defend what their preach on the merits of what they preach, and they become extremely hostile if they are challenged on what they profess.

It seems to be in the liberal psyche.

Even saying this, there are numerous people who lean left that I admire, and have watched, heard, or read over many years now and have learned from.  So there are exceptions.  They just don't seem to be all that typical.   Liberalism seems to mostly have no philosophical center, nothing specific to defend, and is based mostly on a kind of self righteous oneupsmanship and ad hominem.


----------



## mamooth

Foxfyre said:


> Yeah, when it is engaged in as harmless sport, again no harm, no fou and no doubt is fun for manyl. . . .BUT. . . .it still is annoying when it completely derails a thread and makes having a serious discussion impossible.  Which it so often does.



Cut the crap, Fox. You made it clear that you consider providing actual data to be derailing a thread. I witnessed that many times in the Environment folder. You showered praise on the insult-only rightie crowd, and declared that anyone contributing actual data was "doing a big cut-and-paste to distract everyone from the real issues", the "real issues" being your fact-free retard conspiracy theory about how global warming was a socialist plot. You also did that charming thing of declaring that everyone who disagreed with you was a sock, and therefore unworthy of your response.

The only things you've ever cared about are how fervently you can kiss up to the more aggressive members of your tribe, pretending you're not a mindless partisan shill, and projecting your own sleazy actions on to honest people. I see you've found a new group to kiss up to here, so by all means proceed. Just don't think you're fooling anyone with your "I'm so independent and rational" charade. People who can debate, do. People who can't do nothing but whine about how awful the other side is. That would be you.


----------



## Foxfyre

Cut and pasted liberal crap is just as much crap as parroted crap, Mamooth.  And when the person pasting it has no clue what it even means, yeah, that can derail a thread.

Just as your post is totally non responsive to the point I was making here.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Foxfyre said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you are on the left, then all you have is derailing by name calling and such, as there is no reasoning to support their policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While RKM's statement was more perjorative than I would have phrased it, sadly he does have a point.  Again and again and again I have challenged leftists/progressives/modern liberals here at USMB and on numerous other boards to defend a socioeconomic or political concept - ANY concept - without naming or accusing or blaming or deferring to what another person, group, or political party did.  In other words, defend the concept on its own merit without referencing anybody.
> 
> To date, not one--count them, not one!--has taken me up on that challenge.  Those who claim they did so will invariably blame, accuse, or negatively refer to some person, group, or poliical party.  They simply cannot defend what their preach on the merits of what they preach, and they become extremely hostile if they are challenged on what they profess.
> 
> It seems to be in the liberal psyche.
> 
> Even saying this, there are numerous people who lean left that I admire, and have watched, heard, or read over many years now and have learned from.  So there are exceptions.  They just don't seem to be all that typical.   Liberalism seems to mostly have no philosophical center, nothing specific to defend, and is based mostly on a kind of self righteous oneupsmanship and ad hominem.
Click to expand...


OK, but are Liberals/those on the left, progressives (not sure with this group how to describe them), that post on messageboards representative of the group as a whole? 

Also, if someone has information to back up what they claim and it doesn't meet your standards does not mean it has zero merit. It just means you are very specific in what you find to be acceptable documentation to support something.

Also, sometimes people go by what they believe is right-opinions, morals, etc. and may only have their personal opinion to back up what they say or their own personal values or morals. Example: Abortion debate. Or even, universal healthcare being a right versus a privilege. I can see this being how someone believes it is the right thing to do to make sure everyone has access to health care. Perhaps because they feel people who can't afford care dying when they could of gotten help to be unethical.


----------



## mamooth

Foxfyre said:


> Just as your post is totally non responsive to the point I was making here.



You mean the same and only point you try to make on every thread, no matter what the topic is?

You know, how those evil socialist liberals are ruining everything. And how anyone who wants to discuss stupid things like "facts" and "data", as opposed to agreeing with you about how those evil socialist liberals are ruining everything, is clearly "refusing to argue" and "relying on fuzzy emotionalism".

Shame how all your alphas (the ones you showered praise on) over in Environment either got banned for being stalkers, left because the mods warned them to stop spamming, or devolved into alcoholic mutterings. It's tough to be the bully's little toadie if all the bullies are gone. No wonder you left.


----------



## Dragonlady

Perhaps because they're stupid.

More Republicans in Louisiana blame Barrack Obama for the federal government's handing of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, which occurred in 2005, more than three years prior to his election, than blame George W. Bush.

New Poll Shows Louisiana Republicans Blame Obama For How Bush Handled Hurricane Katrina -


----------



## RKMBrown

Wolfsister77 said:


> Also, sometimes people go by what they believe is right-opinions, morals, etc. and may only have their personal opinion to back up what they say or their own personal values or morals. Example: Abortion debate. Or even, universal healthcare being a right versus a privilege. I can see this being how someone believes it is the right thing to do to make sure everyone has access to health care. Perhaps because they feel people who can't afford care dying when they could of gotten help to be unethical.



If they believed it to be ethical to make sure everyone has access to unlimited health care , then why don't they donate all of their income, sell their homes, cars and cell phones to fund what they believe to be right thing to do?   I don't see that happening.  What I see is a group of people that demand "society" pay for everyone's desire to live forever.  Artificial limbs, artificial hearts, dialysis, oncology, ... all great things.  How many tens of millions of dollars should we spend on everyone to ensure that everyone gets to live into their 90s?  Where's the money and labor for this great miracle coming from?

Two wrongs does not a right make.  Taking from others to redistribute to the needy is still theft.  It's wrong.  Should my kids have to go without college so your kid can get a "free" operation?  Should I have to sell my home to pay for a family members operation while another family gets the same operation for free using my tax dollars? Who gets to decide how my money is redistributed fairly to those in need?  Why should we use an inefficient government system for charity when every other government program has been an abysmal experiment in inefficiency?


----------



## Wolfsister77

RKMBrown said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, sometimes people go by what they believe is right-opinions, morals, etc. and may only have their personal opinion to back up what they say or their own personal values or morals. Example: Abortion debate. Or even, universal healthcare being a right versus a privilege. I can see this being how someone believes it is the right thing to do to make sure everyone has access to health care. Perhaps because they feel people who can't afford care dying when they could of gotten help to be unethical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they believed it to be ethical to make sure everyone has access to unlimited health care , then why don't they donate all of their income, sell their homes, cars and cell phones to fund what they believe to be right thing to do?   I don't see that happening.  What I see is a group of people that demand "society" pay for everyone's desire to live forever.  Artificial limbs, artificial hearts, dialysis, oncology, ... all great things.  How many tens of millions of dollars should we spend on everyone to ensure that everyone gets to live into their 90s?  Where's the money and labor for this great miracle coming from?
> 
> Two wrongs does not a right make.  Taking from others to redistribute to the needy is still theft.  It's wrong.  Should my kids have to go without college so your kid can get a "free" operation?  Should I have to sell my home to pay for a family members operation while another family gets the same operation for free using my tax dollars? Who gets to decide how my money is redistributed fairly to those in need?  Why should we use an inefficient government system for charity when every other government program has been an abysmal experiment in inefficiency?
Click to expand...


Who said it was free? Single-payer implies by it's very wording that this is not free. 

Medicare for all with the option to buy private insurance as a supplement would help bring down the cost of health care for everyone because Medicare has lower administrative costs and is more efficient than private insurance companies.

Right now health care costs are high, in part because people who don't have health care go to the ER when they are sick at a much higher cost and it is a much more inefficient system. Private health insurance is not nearly as cost effective as Medicare is. Medicare being able to negotiate for lower drug costs would make it even more cost effective. Less paperwork by switching everyone over to electronic records would also save costs.

------------------------------------------------------------------Above this line are my words, below is from the link I pasted below it.

Upgrading the nations Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.

Thats the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.

Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.

No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care, Friedman said.

?Medicare for All? would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study | Physicians for a National Health Program


----------



## Foxfyre

Wolfsister77 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, sometimes people go by what they believe is right-opinions, morals, etc. and may only have their personal opinion to back up what they say or their own personal values or morals. Example: Abortion debate. Or even, universal healthcare being a right versus a privilege. I can see this being how someone believes it is the right thing to do to make sure everyone has access to health care. Perhaps because they feel people who can't afford care dying when they could of gotten help to be unethical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they believed it to be ethical to make sure everyone has access to unlimited health care , then why don't they donate all of their income, sell their homes, cars and cell phones to fund what they believe to be right thing to do?   I don't see that happening.  What I see is a group of people that demand "society" pay for everyone's desire to live forever.  Artificial limbs, artificial hearts, dialysis, oncology, ... all great things.  How many tens of millions of dollars should we spend on everyone to ensure that everyone gets to live into their 90s?  Where's the money and labor for this great miracle coming from?
> 
> Two wrongs does not a right make.  Taking from others to redistribute to the needy is still theft.  It's wrong.  Should my kids have to go without college so your kid can get a "free" operation?  Should I have to sell my home to pay for a family members operation while another family gets the same operation for free using my tax dollars? Who gets to decide how my money is redistributed fairly to those in need?  Why should we use an inefficient government system for charity when every other government program has been an abysmal experiment in inefficiency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it was free? Single-payer implies by it's very wording that this is not free.
> 
> Medicare for all with the option to buy private insurance as a supplement would help bring down the cost of health care for everyone because Medicare has lower administrative costs and is more efficient than private insurance companies.
> 
> Right now health care costs are high, in part because people who don't have health care go to the ER when they are sick at a much higher cost and it is a much more inefficient system. Private health insurance is not nearly as cost effective as Medicare is. Medicare being able to negotiate for lower drug costs would make it even more cost effective. Less paperwork by switching everyone over to electronic records would also save costs.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------Above this line are my words, below is from the link I pasted below it.
> 
> Upgrading the nation&#8217;s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.
> 
> That&#8217;s the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.
> 
> Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.
> 
> &#8220;No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care,&#8221; Friedman said.
> 
> ?Medicare for All? would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study | Physicians for a National Health Program
Click to expand...


Friedman might have a case except that. like most of his type do, he bases his argument on the basis that everything else stays the same.  It won't.  We already have people choosing professionals other than medical school because they see the avalanche of regulation and snarled concepts coming.  Other physicians are retiring early.   Expanding medicare would require all insurance companies and all physicians to take huge hits in their bottom line.

There are consequences for taking property and liberty and choices away from people, and it is absurd to think they will not change their behavior when you do that.

Friedman wants us to trust the government to run the nation's entire healthcare under single payer - which of course is Obama's ultimate goal unless he has changed his tune from pre-President Obama days.  That is pretty much the modern American liberal goal in everything--change the world for the better via government.

Just don't talk about the same government that has very few things it can point to that aren't done more efficiently and effectively by the private sector.

Want to know one of the reasons Obamacare is falling apart before our eyes?  Read this Bloomberg piece that lays it out there in the flaws in Obamaracare that will bring it down.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...will-bring-down-obama-s-health-care-plan.html


----------



## RKMBrown

Wolfsister77 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, sometimes people go by what they believe is right-opinions, morals, etc. and may only have their personal opinion to back up what they say or their own personal values or morals. Example: Abortion debate. Or even, universal healthcare being a right versus a privilege. I can see this being how someone believes it is the right thing to do to make sure everyone has access to health care. Perhaps because they feel people who can't afford care dying when they could of gotten help to be unethical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they believed it to be ethical to make sure everyone has access to unlimited health care , then why don't they donate all of their income, sell their homes, cars and cell phones to fund what they believe to be right thing to do?   I don't see that happening.  What I see is a group of people that demand "society" pay for everyone's desire to live forever.  Artificial limbs, artificial hearts, dialysis, oncology, ... all great things.  How many tens of millions of dollars should we spend on everyone to ensure that everyone gets to live into their 90s?  Where's the money and labor for this great miracle coming from?
> 
> Two wrongs does not a right make.  Taking from others to redistribute to the needy is still theft.  It's wrong.  Should my kids have to go without college so your kid can get a "free" operation?  Should I have to sell my home to pay for a family members operation while another family gets the same operation for free using my tax dollars? Who gets to decide how my money is redistributed fairly to those in need?  Why should we use an inefficient government system for charity when every other government program has been an abysmal experiment in inefficiency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it was free? Single-payer implies by it's very wording that this is not free.
> 
> Medicare for all with the option to buy private insurance as a supplement would help bring down the cost of health care for everyone because Medicare has lower administrative costs and is more efficient than private insurance companies.
> 
> Right now health care costs are high, in part because people who don't have health care go to the ER when they are sick at a much higher cost and it is a much more inefficient system. Private health insurance is not nearly as cost effective as Medicare is. Medicare being able to negotiate for lower drug costs would make it even more cost effective. Less paperwork by switching everyone over to electronic records would also save costs.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------Above this line are my words, below is from the link I pasted below it.
> 
> Upgrading the nation&#8217;s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.
> 
> That&#8217;s the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.
> 
> Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.
> 
> &#8220;No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care,&#8221; Friedman said.
> 
> ?Medicare for All? would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study | Physicians for a National Health Program
Click to expand...

Typical.  Don't answer one question.  Deflect and obfuscate.  It's free to the people who refuse to work to pay for their health care.  The cost is passed on to the stupid people who do pay.  Why should anyone pay when there is a requirement that no one is forced to pay?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Wolfsister77 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, sometimes people go by what they believe is right-opinions, morals, etc. and may only have their personal opinion to back up what they say or their own personal values or morals. Example: Abortion debate. Or even, universal healthcare being a right versus a privilege. I can see this being how someone believes it is the right thing to do to make sure everyone has access to health care. Perhaps because they feel people who can't afford care dying when they could of gotten help to be unethical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they believed it to be ethical to make sure everyone has access to unlimited health care , then why don't they donate all of their income, sell their homes, cars and cell phones to fund what they believe to be right thing to do?   I don't see that happening.  What I see is a group of people that demand "society" pay for everyone's desire to live forever.  Artificial limbs, artificial hearts, dialysis, oncology, ... all great things.  How many tens of millions of dollars should we spend on everyone to ensure that everyone gets to live into their 90s?  Where's the money and labor for this great miracle coming from?
> 
> Two wrongs does not a right make.  Taking from others to redistribute to the needy is still theft.  It's wrong.  Should my kids have to go without college so your kid can get a "free" operation?  Should I have to sell my home to pay for a family members operation while another family gets the same operation for free using my tax dollars? Who gets to decide how my money is redistributed fairly to those in need?  Why should we use an inefficient government system for charity when every other government program has been an abysmal experiment in inefficiency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it was free? Single-payer implies by it's very wording that this is not free.
> 
> *Medicare for all with the option to buy private insurance as a supplement would help bring down the cost of health care for everyone because Medicare has lower administrative costs and is more efficient than private insurance companies.*
> 
> Right now health care costs are high, in part because people who don't have health care go to the ER when they are sick at a much higher cost and it is a much more inefficient system. Private health insurance is not nearly as cost effective as Medicare is. Medicare being able to negotiate for lower drug costs would make it even more cost effective. Less paperwork by switching everyone over to electronic records would also save costs.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------Above this line are my words, below is from the link I pasted below it.
> 
> Upgrading the nations Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.
> 
> Thats the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.
> 
> Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.
> 
> No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care, Friedman said.
> 
> ?Medicare for All? would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study | Physicians for a National Health Program
Click to expand...


Exactly. 

Well said.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

RKMBrown said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they believed it to be ethical to make sure everyone has access to unlimited health care , then why don't they donate all of their income, sell their homes, cars and cell phones to fund what they believe to be right thing to do?   I don't see that happening.  What I see is a group of people that demand "society" pay for everyone's desire to live forever.  Artificial limbs, artificial hearts, dialysis, oncology, ... all great things.  How many tens of millions of dollars should we spend on everyone to ensure that everyone gets to live into their 90s?  Where's the money and labor for this great miracle coming from?
> 
> Two wrongs does not a right make.  Taking from others to redistribute to the needy is still theft.  It's wrong.  Should my kids have to go without college so your kid can get a "free" operation?  Should I have to sell my home to pay for a family members operation while another family gets the same operation for free using my tax dollars? Who gets to decide how my money is redistributed fairly to those in need?  Why should we use an inefficient government system for charity when every other government program has been an abysmal experiment in inefficiency?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it was free? Single-payer implies by it's very wording that this is not free.
> 
> Medicare for all with the option to buy private insurance as a supplement would help bring down the cost of health care for everyone because Medicare has lower administrative costs and is more efficient than private insurance companies.
> 
> Right now health care costs are high, in part because people who don't have health care go to the ER when they are sick at a much higher cost and it is a much more inefficient system. Private health insurance is not nearly as cost effective as Medicare is. Medicare being able to negotiate for lower drug costs would make it even more cost effective. Less paperwork by switching everyone over to electronic records would also save costs.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------Above this line are my words, below is from the link I pasted below it.
> 
> Upgrading the nations Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.
> 
> Thats the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.
> 
> Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.
> 
> No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care, Friedman said.
> 
> ?Medicare for All? would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study | Physicians for a National Health Program
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical.  Don't answer one question.  Deflect and obfuscate.  It's free to the people who refuse to work to pay for their health care.  The cost is passed on to the stupid people who do pay.  Why should anyone pay when there is a requirement that no one is forced to pay?
Click to expand...


Then what is the solution you and others on the right advocate? 

Whats the conservative plan to ensure every American has health insurance and access to health care? 

Its not enough to seek only to repeal the ACA, youve also got to propose what youll replace it with.


----------



## RKMBrown

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it was free? Single-payer implies by it's very wording that this is not free.
> 
> Medicare for all with the option to buy private insurance as a supplement would help bring down the cost of health care for everyone because Medicare has lower administrative costs and is more efficient than private insurance companies.
> 
> Right now health care costs are high, in part because people who don't have health care go to the ER when they are sick at a much higher cost and it is a much more inefficient system. Private health insurance is not nearly as cost effective as Medicare is. Medicare being able to negotiate for lower drug costs would make it even more cost effective. Less paperwork by switching everyone over to electronic records would also save costs.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------Above this line are my words, below is from the link I pasted below it.
> 
> Upgrading the nation&#8217;s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.
> 
> That&#8217;s the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.
> 
> Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.
> 
> &#8220;No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care,&#8221; Friedman said.
> 
> ?Medicare for All? would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study | Physicians for a National Health Program
> 
> 
> 
> Typical.  Don't answer one question.  Deflect and obfuscate.  It's free to the people who refuse to work to pay for their health care.  The cost is passed on to the stupid people who do pay.  Why should anyone pay when there is a requirement that no one is forced to pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what is the solution you and others on the right advocate?
> 
> What&#8217;s the conservative plan to ensure every American has health insurance and access to health care?
> 
> It&#8217;s not enough to seek only to repeal the ACA, you&#8217;ve also got to propose what you&#8217;ll replace it with.
Click to expand...

First people can work for their own health care.  If you stop paying people to not work and instead collect welfare they will start to try to earn an income to pay their way.  People used to negotiate price with their health care providers.  We can go back to capitalism.  It worked for hundreds of years prior to government intervention.  We can go back to having citizens be personally responsible again.  People can lean on their families rather than expecting a government bailout.

Second, for people that need charity because they have no family, no money, and no ability to earn income... (why that would be I cant really fathom), how about we let charity go through charities. It's not that hard a concept.  Free clinics, donations through charities.  Course the government has been doing it's best to shut these down as they don't want charities to compete with single payer.

Why are people trying to turn government into their "church", into some sort of charity organization that gets its funds through forced re-distributions?   This will not work  People will just quit working to collect the freebies and live on the dole.  This is nutz.  We have 8.9million people collecting disability now.  INSANE

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...billion-a-year-disability-industrial-complex/


----------



## Foxfyre

To say that Obamacare, however disastrous it might be, must be retained unless it is replaced with something is like saying that if you put out a fire, you have to replace it with something.


----------



## Dot Com

its 17% of the economy so yes Foxy, it has to be replaced or the non-Obamacare premium increases will eventually devour the entire economy. Been a year and a half and STILL the Repubs have not crafted an alternative YET they've spent time/MILLIONS in taxpayer $$$ trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Sad that.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Then what is the solution you and others on the right advocate?
> 
> What&#8217;s the conservative plan *to ensure every American has health insurance and access to health care*?
> 
> It&#8217;s not enough to seek only to repeal the ACA, you&#8217;ve also got to propose what you&#8217;ll replace it with.



That remains to be seen, doesn't it? It might, in fact, be enough. And it seems to me that the possibility would be troubling to supporters of the law. Public enthusiaism for ACA is so low that Republicans are finding significant support _without_ offering to 'replace' it with anything - by simply claiming that they'll repeal it. 

But while claiming opposition to ACA might get more Republicans elected, it won't be 'enough' to actually repeal the law. The portion of the Republicans in office who genuinely oppose corporatism is growing, but it's still quite low. Not enough to support actual repeal - no matter what they might say in the lead up to the 2014 elections.

I also want to address the hidden Trojan usually lurking in demands for a 'replacement'. They generally make unwarranted assumptions about what the problem is that we're trying to solve. And you're doing that here (see the portion of your quote that I took the liberty to bold). 

The broadest support for health care reform is based on the perception that health care is much more expensive than it should be. There is NOT a broad consensus that government should be used to ensure that everyone has insurance or 'access' (gotta love the word choices) to health care. Yet, from your comments above, you'd reject any alternative to Obamacare that doesn't have that as it's goal.

The point is, we really have to agree on what problem we're trying to solve before we start talking about a plan of attack. And that's not yet been decided clearly. That's what we're still debating as a nation. PPACA is an attempt to prematurely end that debate be enticing dependency and creating yet another opportunity for corporate/government collusion at our expense.


----------



## American_Jihad

*The dead end of liberalism*

Steve Leigh, Seattle
December 6, 2012

...

The dead end of liberalism | SocialistWorker.org


----------



## Bfgrn

koshergrl said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My answer is, if I don't feel like I know enough about a subject, is to just do some research on my own. Read the thread, go study what everyone said, and teach myself.
> 
> There is no way anybody knows everything about everything and a lot of it is different interpretations and opinions about things.
> 
> If I'm incorrect, I'd like to be told how and how I can learn more to correct myself.
> 
> Not be told, as so many do and have, that liberals are uneducated and stupid or don't know history as if all liberals are like that.
> 
> How do you know what someone's education level is based solely on a post here?
> 
> Assumptions are not a good thing and it really discourages opposing debate.
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you.
> 
> The fact that multiple posters have no clue what inalienable rights are by definition, and further don't understand the laws that protect their own liberty...and yet who insist on interjecting themselves into the dialogue making demands as if they are afforded those things is indicative of a crap education. People who are knowledgeable can certainly discern the education level in any given topic by the vapidity of the comments made. Those of us who do have a working knowledge of history, and our country's political system, and the government, can absolutely recognize deficiencies in the education of people whose comments make it OBVIOUS that they don't have adequate understanding of the topics they opine on to make an intelligent, educated decision.
> 
> The ignorance of the left is pervasive, and it is directly attributable to leftist educators, and a progressive system meant to control, rather than educate, the people.
Click to expand...


Liberals are able to understand concepts that conservatives have no ability to grasp and never will be able to grasp. Why? Because conservatives don't think, they mimic what they are taught or they emote. I stated a FACT: No one who shows up at a hospital for treatment is turned away, NO ONE...regardless of their ability to pay. It is the law.

Doctors don't go unpaid for that treatment, WE pay for it. It is added to the insurance premiums of every responsible American who KNOWS that health is not guaranteed. An illness or injury can happen to anyone regardless of age. To go without health insurance is not the 'personal responsibility' you right wingers claim as your mantra. it is gross personal irresponsibility.

As a matter of fact, the term for those people was coined by conservatives from right wing think tanks like the Heritage foundation...FREE RIDERS.

I NEVER said health care should be free. I would like to see America go to a single payer plan. Do you notice a key word there? Single PAYER. Everyone PAYS a premium or a tax that would be much lower than our current private cartel run death care.

Thomas Jefferson defined what inalienable rights are in the Declaration of Independence; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

PLEASE explain to me how anyone, regardless of age or wealth can have ANY of those  inalienable rights without LIFE? Dead people have no rights. And then explain to me how anyone can have life without health care?


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My answer is, if I don't feel like I know enough about a subject, is to just do some research on my own. Read the thread, go study what everyone said, and teach myself.
> 
> There is no way anybody knows everything about everything and a lot of it is different interpretations and opinions about things.
> 
> If I'm incorrect, I'd like to be told how and how I can learn more to correct myself.
> 
> Not be told, as so many do and have, that liberals are uneducated and stupid or don't know history as if all liberals are like that.
> 
> How do you know what someone's education level is based solely on a post here?
> 
> Assumptions are not a good thing and it really discourages opposing debate.
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you.
> 
> The fact that multiple posters have no clue what inalienable rights are by definition, and further don't understand the laws that protect their own liberty...and yet who insist on interjecting themselves into the dialogue making demands as if they are afforded those things is indicative of a crap education. People who are knowledgeable can certainly discern the education level in any given topic by the vapidity of the comments made. Those of us who do have a working knowledge of history, and our country's political system, and the government, can absolutely recognize deficiencies in the education of people whose comments make it OBVIOUS that they don't have adequate understanding of the topics they opine on to make an intelligent, educated decision.
> 
> The ignorance of the left is pervasive, and it is directly attributable to leftist educators, and a progressive system meant to control, rather than educate, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals are able to understand concepts that conservatives have no ability to grasp and never will be able to grasp. Why? Because conservatives don't think, they mimic what they are taught or they emote. I stated a FACT: No one who shows up at a hospital for treatment is turned away, NO ONE...regardless of their ability to pay. It is the law.
> 
> Doctors don't go unpaid for that treatment, WE pay for it. It is added to the insurance premiums of every responsible American who KNOWS that health is not guaranteed. An illness or injury can happen to anyone regardless of age. To go without health insurance is not the 'personal responsibility' you right wingers claim as your mantra. it is gross personal irresponsibility.
> 
> As a matter of fact, the term for those people was coined by conservatives from right wing think tanks like the Heritage foundation...FREE RIDERS.
> 
> I NEVER said health care should be free. I would like to see America go to a single payer plan. Do you notice a key word there? Single PAYER. Everyone PAYS a premium or a tax that would be much lower than our current private cartel run death care.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson defined what inalienable rights are in the Declaration of Independence; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> PLEASE explain to me how anyone, regardless of age or wealth can have ANY of those  inalienable rights without LIFE? Dead people have no rights. And then explain to me how anyone can have life without health care?
Click to expand...


OMG everyone pays?  How would that work for the people who have no money?


----------



## Wolfsister77

RKMBrown said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you.
> 
> The fact that multiple posters have no clue what inalienable rights are by definition, and further don't understand the laws that protect their own liberty...and yet who insist on interjecting themselves into the dialogue making demands as if they are afforded those things is indicative of a crap education. People who are knowledgeable can certainly discern the education level in any given topic by the vapidity of the comments made. Those of us who do have a working knowledge of history, and our country's political system, and the government, can absolutely recognize deficiencies in the education of people whose comments make it OBVIOUS that they don't have adequate understanding of the topics they opine on to make an intelligent, educated decision.
> 
> The ignorance of the left is pervasive, and it is directly attributable to leftist educators, and a progressive system meant to control, rather than educate, the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals are able to understand concepts that conservatives have no ability to grasp and never will be able to grasp. Why? Because conservatives don't think, they mimic what they are taught or they emote. I stated a FACT: No one who shows up at a hospital for treatment is turned away, NO ONE...regardless of their ability to pay. It is the law.
> 
> Doctors don't go unpaid for that treatment, WE pay for it. It is added to the insurance premiums of every responsible American who KNOWS that health is not guaranteed. An illness or injury can happen to anyone regardless of age. To go without health insurance is not the 'personal responsibility' you right wingers claim as your mantra. it is gross personal irresponsibility.
> 
> As a matter of fact, the term for those people was coined by conservatives from right wing think tanks like the Heritage foundation...FREE RIDERS.
> 
> I NEVER said health care should be free. I would like to see America go to a single payer plan. Do you notice a key word there? Single PAYER. Everyone PAYS a premium or a tax that would be much lower than our current private cartel run death care.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson defined what inalienable rights are in the Declaration of Independence; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> PLEASE explain to me how anyone, regardless of age or wealth can have ANY of those  inalienable rights without LIFE? Dead people have no rights. And then explain to me how anyone can have life without health care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG everyone pays?  How would that work for the people who have no money?
Click to expand...


Do some research on single-payer and how it works. It's not free.

I added a link about HR 676 and how it is funded if anyone is interested.

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding HR 676_Friedman_7.31.13.pdf


----------



## RKMBrown

Wolfsister77 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals are able to understand concepts that conservatives have no ability to grasp and never will be able to grasp. Why? Because conservatives don't think, they mimic what they are taught or they emote. I stated a FACT: No one who shows up at a hospital for treatment is turned away, NO ONE...regardless of their ability to pay. It is the law.
> 
> Doctors don't go unpaid for that treatment, WE pay for it. It is added to the insurance premiums of every responsible American who KNOWS that health is not guaranteed. An illness or injury can happen to anyone regardless of age. To go without health insurance is not the 'personal responsibility' you right wingers claim as your mantra. it is gross personal irresponsibility.
> 
> As a matter of fact, the term for those people was coined by conservatives from right wing think tanks like the Heritage foundation...FREE RIDERS.
> 
> I NEVER said health care should be free. I would like to see America go to a single payer plan. Do you notice a key word there? Single PAYER. Everyone PAYS a premium or a tax that would be much lower than our current private cartel run death care.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson defined what inalienable rights are in the Declaration of Independence; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> PLEASE explain to me how anyone, regardless of age or wealth can have ANY of those  inalienable rights without LIFE? Dead people have no rights. And then explain to me how anyone can have life without health care?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG everyone pays?  How would that work for the people who have no money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do some research on single-payer and how it works. It's not free.
Click to expand...


How do people who have no assets and refuse to work pay for their health care in a single payer system?  Where does the money for their health care come from? Who is this single payer?


----------



## Wolfsister77

RKMBrown said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG everyone pays?  How would that work for the people who have no money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do some research on single-payer and how it works. It's not free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do people who have no assets and refuse to work pay for their health care in a single payer system?  Where does the money for their health care come from? Who is this single payer?
Click to expand...


Sorry-I edited my post with a link about HR 676 and how it is paid for to be more specific in my post.


----------



## Wolfsister77

RKMBrown said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG everyone pays?  How would that work for the people who have no money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do some research on single-payer and how it works. It's not free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do people who have no assets and refuse to work pay for their health care in a single payer system?  Where does the money for their health care come from? Who is this single payer?
Click to expand...


Also, you've implied in a few of your posts that the uninsured are people who refuse to work. 

I want to point out that many people who work do not have health care.

It isn't an issue of working or not.


----------



## RKMBrown

Wolfsister77 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals are able to understand concepts that conservatives have no ability to grasp and never will be able to grasp. Why? Because conservatives don't think, they mimic what they are taught or they emote. I stated a FACT: No one who shows up at a hospital for treatment is turned away, NO ONE...regardless of their ability to pay. It is the law.
> 
> Doctors don't go unpaid for that treatment, WE pay for it. It is added to the insurance premiums of every responsible American who KNOWS that health is not guaranteed. An illness or injury can happen to anyone regardless of age. To go without health insurance is not the 'personal responsibility' you right wingers claim as your mantra. it is gross personal irresponsibility.
> 
> As a matter of fact, the term for those people was coined by conservatives from right wing think tanks like the Heritage foundation...FREE RIDERS.
> 
> I NEVER said health care should be free. I would like to see America go to a single payer plan. Do you notice a key word there? Single PAYER. Everyone PAYS a premium or a tax that would be much lower than our current private cartel run death care.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson defined what inalienable rights are in the Declaration of Independence; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> PLEASE explain to me how anyone, regardless of age or wealth can have ANY of those  inalienable rights without LIFE? Dead people have no rights. And then explain to me how anyone can have life without health care?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG everyone pays?  How would that work for the people who have no money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do some research on single-payer and how it works. It's not free.
> 
> I added a link about HR 676 and how it is funded if anyone is interested.
> 
> http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding HR 676_Friedman_7.31.13.pdf
Click to expand...


Oh I see.  The top half pays for the bottom half.  The more money you have the more expensive health care is for you.  Everyone in the bottom 51% of income gets it for nothing.  Makes sense. Where do I sign up to be in the bottom 51%?


----------



## Dragonlady

Foxfyre said:


> Cut and pasted liberal crap is just as much crap as parroted crap, Mamooth.  And when the person pasting it has no clue what it even means, yeah, that can derail a thread.
> 
> Just as your post is totally non responsive to the point I was making here.



This is also your tactic.  To reject any argument or criticism, however valid, as not conforming to your rules of debate.  I've pretty much given up discussing anything with you because you deflect any valid points as beyong the scope of what you were asking.

There are lots of bright, informed liberals on this board, who post lots of links to studies and articles from mainstream media and not partisan hack sites, like FOX News, and it's all rejected.  Instead, you parrot the writings of the Heritiage Foundation, which receives much of its funding from Big Oil.

It's always amazed me that conservatives give so much credence to a news outlet owned by an Australian and a Saudi with no interest except to undermine the US economy, but that's just my suspicious nature.


----------



## koshergrl

Wolfsister77 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do some research on single-payer and how it works. It's not free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do people who have no assets and refuse to work pay for their health care in a single payer system? Where does the money for their health care come from? Who is this single payer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, you've implied in a few of your posts that the uninsured are people who refuse to work.
> 
> I want to point out that many people who work do not have health care.
> 
> It isn't an issue of working or not.
Click to expand...

 
Health CARE and health INSURANCE are two different things.

And people who WORK are not ELIGIBLE for mandated insurance...their income puts them over the income standard (but not their kids..programs for kids and pregnant women have much higher income standards). 

Everybody in this country can get health care. Even if they can't pay for it. So please stop lying and pretending that health CARE is not available, just because people don't have health INSURANCE provided by the state. Also stop pretending that working men and women are the ones burdening the existing medicaid programs..they are not. THOSE men and women go without insurance...the men and women who are ELIGIBLE for health insurance (medicaid) ARE those men and women who are refusing to work. If you are an able bodied adult on MEDICAID, then you are not providing for yourself or your family. And only a tiny percentage of those who are not providing actually have a REASON for not providing. People who are disabled are eligible for other programs.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cut and pasted liberal crap is just as much crap as parroted crap, Mamooth.  And when the person pasting it has no clue what it even means, yeah, that can derail a thread.
> 
> Just as your post is totally non responsive to the point I was making here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is also your tactic.  To reject any argument or criticism, however valid, as not conforming to your rules of debate.  I've pretty much given up discussing anything with you because you deflect any valid points as beyong the scope of what you were asking.
> 
> There are lots of bright, informed liberals on this board, who post lots of links to studies and articles from mainstream media and not partisan hack sites, like FOX News, and it's all rejected.  Instead, you parrot the writings of the Heritiage Foundation, which receives much of its funding from Big Oil.
> 
> It's always amazed me that conservatives give so much credence to a news outlet owned by an Australian and a Saudi with no interest except to undermine the US economy, but that's just my suspicious nature.
Click to expand...


I will continue to reject crap that is crap regardless of its source DL.  And I will continue to accept good information from any source including some of those you think are wonderful.  But how is my rejecting your argument any different than you dismissing me because I won't agree with your view of the world?  Have you once accepted one of my sources as valid or any argument I have ever made?   Have you ever attempted to have a discussion that didn't not include an attack on me or Repulicans or conservatives or anybody you consider unworthy to be in your world?

A discussion goes like this:
Person one:   In my opinion. . . . .
Person two:   I disagree with that because. . . .or that is true, but also true is. . . .  or something similar. 

A few liberal friends at USMB know how to do that without using the insult or adhominem references.  Some actually do that.  But they are so very rare.


----------



## numan

Wolfsister77 said:


> Right now health care costs are high, in part because people who don't have health care go to the ER when they are sick at a much higher cost and it is a much more inefficient system.


Health care costs are high because Big Pharma and the doctors are thieves and scammers.

.


----------



## RKMBrown

Wolfsister77 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do some research on single-payer and how it works. It's not free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do people who have no assets and refuse to work pay for their health care in a single payer system?  Where does the money for their health care come from? Who is this single payer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, you've implied in a few of your posts that the uninsured are people who refuse to work.
> 
> I want to point out that many people who work do not have health care.
> 
> It isn't an issue of working or not.
Click to expand...


I implied nothing of the kind.


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> Health care costs are high because Big Pharma and the doctors are thieves and scammers.
> 
> .



Have you ever met a doctor in real life? Not as a patient - but as a person?


----------



## Bfgrn

koshergrl said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do people who have no assets and refuse to work pay for their health care in a single payer system? Where does the money for their health care come from? Who is this single payer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, you've implied in a few of your posts that the uninsured are people who refuse to work.
> 
> I want to point out that many people who work do not have health care.
> 
> It isn't an issue of working or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Health CARE and health INSURANCE are two different things.
> 
> And people who WORK are not ELIGIBLE for mandated insurance...their income puts them over the income standard (but not their kids..programs for kids and pregnant women have much higher income standards).
> 
> Everybody in this country can get health care. Even if they can't pay for it. So please stop lying and pretending that health CARE is not available, just because people don't have health INSURANCE provided by the state. Also stop pretending that working men and women are the ones burdening the existing medicaid programs..they are not. THOSE men and women go without insurance...the men and women who are ELIGIBLE for health insurance (medicaid) ARE those men and women who are refusing to work. If you are an able bodied adult on MEDICAID, then you are not providing for yourself or your family. And only a tiny percentage of those who are not providing actually have a REASON for not providing. People who are disabled are eligible for other programs.
Click to expand...


Health care in America.






 New Orleans, La.   It happened as I watched a 50-something woman walk out, after spending several hours being attended to by volunteer doctors. "She's decided against treatment. A reasonable decision under the circumstances," the doctor tells us as she heads for the next patient. The president of the board of the National Association of Free Health Clinics tells me why: "It's stage four breast cancer, her body is filled with tumors." I don't know when that woman last saw a doctor. But I do know that if she had health insurance, the odds she would have seen a doctor long ago are much higher, and her chances for an earlier diagnosis and treatment would have been far greater.

After watching for hours as the patients moved through the clinic, it was hard to believe that I was in America.

Eighty-three percent of the patients they see are employed, they are not accepting other government help on a large scale, not "welfare queens" as some would like to have us believe. They are tax-paying, good, upstanding citizens who are trying to make it and give their kids a better life just like you and me.

Ninety percent of the patients who came through Saturday's clinic had two or more diagnoses.
Eighty-two percent had a life-threatening condition such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or hypertension. They are victims of a system built with corporate profits at its center, which long ago forgot the moral imperative that should drive us to show compassion to our fellow men and women.

Health reform is not about Democrats or Republicans or who can score political points for the next election, it's about people. It's about fairness and justice in a system that knows none. I'd defy even the most hardened capitalist-loving-conservative to do what I did on Saturday and continue to pretend that the system in place right now is working.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, you've implied in a few of your posts that the uninsured are people who refuse to work.
> 
> I want to point out that many people who work do not have health care.
> 
> It isn't an issue of working or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health CARE and health INSURANCE are two different things.
> 
> And people who WORK are not ELIGIBLE for mandated insurance...their income puts them over the income standard (but not their kids..programs for kids and pregnant women have much higher income standards).
> 
> Everybody in this country can get health care. Even if they can't pay for it. So please stop lying and pretending that health CARE is not available, just because people don't have health INSURANCE provided by the state. Also stop pretending that working men and women are the ones burdening the existing medicaid programs..they are not. THOSE men and women go without insurance...the men and women who are ELIGIBLE for health insurance (medicaid) ARE those men and women who are refusing to work. If you are an able bodied adult on MEDICAID, then you are not providing for yourself or your family. And only a tiny percentage of those who are not providing actually have a REASON for not providing. People who are disabled are eligible for other programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Health care in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Orleans, La. &#8212; &#8212; It happened as I watched a 50-something woman walk out, after spending several hours being attended to by volunteer doctors. "She's decided against treatment. A reasonable decision under the circumstances," the doctor tells us as she heads for the next patient. The president of the board of the National Association of Free Health Clinics tells me why: "It's stage four breast cancer, her body is filled with tumors." I don't know when that woman last saw a doctor. But I do know that if she had health insurance, the odds she would have seen a doctor long ago are much higher, and her chances for an earlier diagnosis and treatment would have been far greater.
> 
> After watching for hours as the patients moved through the clinic, it was hard to believe that I was in America.
> 
> Eighty-three percent of the patients they see are employed, they are not accepting other government help on a large scale, not "welfare queens" as some would like to have us believe. They are tax-paying, good, upstanding citizens who are trying to make it and give their kids a better life just like you and me.
> 
> Ninety percent of the patients who came through Saturday's clinic had two or more diagnoses.
> Eighty-two percent had a life-threatening condition such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or hypertension. They are victims of a system built with corporate profits at its center, which long ago forgot the moral imperative that should drive us to show compassion to our fellow men and women.
> 
> Health reform is not about Democrats or Republicans or who can score political points for the next election, it's about people. It's about fairness and justice in a system that knows none. I'd defy even the most hardened capitalist-loving-conservative to do what I did on Saturday and continue to pretend that the system in place right now is working.
Click to expand...


Typical libtard response.  Everyone on this planet knows to get checkups for breast cancer. Everyone.  Libtard excuse for everyone not getting their free checkups? Republicans did not opt to beg everyone to get their free checkup earlier.  Libtard solution? Steal money from republicans to give people free health care to replace the free health care being provided by the free clinic in the libtard provided example.


----------



## Wolfsister77

RKMBrown said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Health CARE and health INSURANCE are two different things.
> 
> And people who WORK are not ELIGIBLE for mandated insurance...their income puts them over the income standard (but not their kids..programs for kids and pregnant women have much higher income standards).
> 
> Everybody in this country can get health care. Even if they can't pay for it. So please stop lying and pretending that health CARE is not available, just because people don't have health INSURANCE provided by the state. Also stop pretending that working men and women are the ones burdening the existing medicaid programs..they are not. THOSE men and women go without insurance...the men and women who are ELIGIBLE for health insurance (medicaid) ARE those men and women who are refusing to work. If you are an able bodied adult on MEDICAID, then you are not providing for yourself or your family. And only a tiny percentage of those who are not providing actually have a REASON for not providing. People who are disabled are eligible for other programs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health care in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Orleans, La.   It happened as I watched a 50-something woman walk out, after spending several hours being attended to by volunteer doctors. "She's decided against treatment. A reasonable decision under the circumstances," the doctor tells us as she heads for the next patient. The president of the board of the National Association of Free Health Clinics tells me why: "It's stage four breast cancer, her body is filled with tumors." I don't know when that woman last saw a doctor. But I do know that if she had health insurance, the odds she would have seen a doctor long ago are much higher, and her chances for an earlier diagnosis and treatment would have been far greater.
> 
> After watching for hours as the patients moved through the clinic, it was hard to believe that I was in America.
> 
> Eighty-three percent of the patients they see are employed, they are not accepting other government help on a large scale, not "welfare queens" as some would like to have us believe. They are tax-paying, good, upstanding citizens who are trying to make it and give their kids a better life just like you and me.
> 
> Ninety percent of the patients who came through Saturday's clinic had two or more diagnoses.
> Eighty-two percent had a life-threatening condition such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or hypertension. They are victims of a system built with corporate profits at its center, which long ago forgot the moral imperative that should drive us to show compassion to our fellow men and women.
> 
> Health reform is not about Democrats or Republicans or who can score political points for the next election, it's about people. It's about fairness and justice in a system that knows none. I'd defy even the most hardened capitalist-loving-conservative to do what I did on Saturday and continue to pretend that the system in place right now is working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical libtard response.  Everyone on this planet knows to get checkups for breast cancer. Everyone.  Libtard excuse for everyone not getting their free checkups? Republicans did not opt to beg everyone to get their free checkup earlier.  Libtard solution? Steal money from republicans to give people free health care to replace the free health care being provided by the free clinic in the libtard provided example.
Click to expand...


Typical. Resort to use of the word Libtard when you can't discuss something like an adult.


----------



## RKMBrown

Wolfsister77 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Health care in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Orleans, La.   It happened as I watched a 50-something woman walk out, after spending several hours being attended to by volunteer doctors. "She's decided against treatment. A reasonable decision under the circumstances," the doctor tells us as she heads for the next patient. The president of the board of the National Association of Free Health Clinics tells me why: "It's stage four breast cancer, her body is filled with tumors." I don't know when that woman last saw a doctor. But I do know that if she had health insurance, the odds she would have seen a doctor long ago are much higher, and her chances for an earlier diagnosis and treatment would have been far greater.
> 
> After watching for hours as the patients moved through the clinic, it was hard to believe that I was in America.
> 
> Eighty-three percent of the patients they see are employed, they are not accepting other government help on a large scale, not "welfare queens" as some would like to have us believe. They are tax-paying, good, upstanding citizens who are trying to make it and give their kids a better life just like you and me.
> 
> Ninety percent of the patients who came through Saturday's clinic had two or more diagnoses.
> Eighty-two percent had a life-threatening condition such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or hypertension. They are victims of a system built with corporate profits at its center, which long ago forgot the moral imperative that should drive us to show compassion to our fellow men and women.
> 
> Health reform is not about Democrats or Republicans or who can score political points for the next election, it's about people. It's about fairness and justice in a system that knows none. I'd defy even the most hardened capitalist-loving-conservative to do what I did on Saturday and continue to pretend that the system in place right now is working.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical libtard response.  Everyone on this planet knows to get checkups for breast cancer. Everyone.  Libtard excuse for everyone not getting their free checkups? Republicans did not opt to beg everyone to get their free checkup earlier.  Libtard solution? Steal money from republicans to give people free health care to replace the free health care being provided by the free clinic in the libtard provided example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. Resort to use of the word Libtard when you can't discuss something like an adult.
Click to expand...


You have a better word for his lunacy?


----------



## Foxfyre

And health care at all levels was far more affordable before the federal government got involved.  And survival rates for deadly diseases was higher in the USA than any other place.  Once the government started pulling millions of people into the system, however, with guaranteed payments and the person's ability to pay was no longer a factor, the costs have been spiraling out of control ever since.  It happens every single time the free market system is short circuited by something somebody promises will be better.

It is no accident that the more Medicaid and Medicare have been expanded, the higher insurance costs have risen and the more costly all forms of healthcare has become.

The argument can be made that health care would be more affordable and more patient friendly--the health care providers would have to provide a product at a cost people could afford - if the government got out of the business altogether.  

It has to be part of the equation.


----------



## mamooth

RKMBrown said:


> You have a better word for his lunacy?



Logic. Hence why it was so far over your head. The real world is difficult for TrueBelievers to understand.

Meanwhile, let's all ask the Canadians or Europeans if they want to trash their single payer systems. They'll bust a gut laughing if you tell them the American system is better,  though they are a little annoyed at all the Americans crossing borders to seek health care. Much of the world successfully runs such a system, demonstrating how detached from reality you are.

You mission is to explain why the real world contradicts your dogma. What does your cult tell you the answer is?


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> And health care at all levels was far more affordable before the federal government got involved.  And survival rates for deadly diseases was higher in the USA than any other place.  Once the government started pulling millions of people into the system, however, with guaranteed payments and the person's ability to pay was no longer a factor, the costs have been spiraling out of control ever since.  It happens every single time the free market system is short circuited by something somebody promises will be better.
> 
> It is no accident that the more Medicaid and Medicare have been expanded, the higher insurance costs have risen and the more costly all forms of healthcare has become.
> 
> The argument can be made that health care would be more affordable and more patient friendly--the health care providers would have to provide a product at a cost people could afford - if the government got out of the business altogether.
> 
> It has to be part of the equation.



Totally false premise AGAIN.






High health care costs: Who's to blame?

Drug companies, insurers, politicians, lawyers, and the bad habits of Americans all figure into high and rising health-care costs. But the biggest contributors to high costsdoctors and hospitalsget off easier among consumers, our survey found.

"The aim of our health-care system should not be to make a profit for insurance and drug companies. It should be to provide affordable, high-quality care for all Americans," said Andrea Hanson, 31, a college teacher from Murphy, Texas, who responded to our invitation to share her story online.

The focus on drug and pharmaceutical companies is not surprising because of the way that most Americans pay for health care, said experts we consulted.

"Americans tend to focus on the bills they pay, not the total cost of health care," said Jacob S. Hacker, professor of political science at Yale University. "And the bills for most Americans ultimately reflect what insurance companies don't cover and what drug companies charge consumers at the pharmacy. They see the big profits these companies earn even as they, the patients, are struggling to pay their bills."

But a closer look at health-cost trends shows that these players, in roughly descending order, contributed the most to rising costs:

*Hospitals and doctors.* Doctors and hospitals account for by far the largest share, 52 percent in 2006, of all national health spending. There's abundant evidence that some of that spending is unnecessary. Under the present system, hospitals and doctors earn more money by doing costly interventions than by keeping people healthy. And more medical care doesn't necessarily mean better care, according to research on Medicare expenditures by the Dartmouth Medical School's Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.

Yet just 59 percent of our survey respondents named hospitals, and 47 percent named doctors, as major spending culprits. (Percentages add up to more than 100 because respondents could select as many factors as they wanted.)

*Drug companies.* Prescription drugs account for only one-tenth of total health-care expenditures. But drug spending has increased as a share of overall expenditures over the past decade.

Seventy-six percent of respondents blamed drugmakers generally, and 74 percent said drugmakers charged too much for their products.

*Insurance companies. *Health-insurance premiums have grown faster than inflation or workers' earnings over the past decade, in parallel with the equally rapid rise in overall health costs. Industry spending on administrative and marketing costs, plus profits, consumes 12 percent of private-insurance premiums.

Seventy-seven percent of respondents blamed insurance companies in general for high costs, and 70 percent said insurers overcharged for their products and services.

*Politicians and government regulators.* Although the government directly controls only 46 percent of national health spending, many of its policies affect the bottom line of the health-care industry, for example, by setting Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors on which private insurers base their rates, or by regulating health insurance. Between 1999 and 2006, the health-care lobby spent more than any other business sector, according to a study by the Institute for Health & Socio-Economic Policy, a nonprofit policy and research group.

Sixty-four percent of respondents faulted politicians and 58 percent faulted government regulators for failing to control health-care costs.

*Lawyers.* Malpractice-insurance premiums and liability awards account for less than 2 percent of overall health-care spending, according to a 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office. Defensive medicine, the practice of ordering extra tests or procedures to protect against lawsuits, might add another few percentage points, according to some estimates.

Yet 60 percent of respondents blamed lawyers for high costs, and 69 percent specifically pointed to "frivolous lawsuits."

*Health-care consumers.* "Modifiable" risk factors, such as eating too much, exercising too little, or smoking, are to blame for an estimated 25 percent of U.S. health-care costs, according to expert estimates. But even if every American took up healthful living overnight, our health-care expenses would still be the second highest in the world (after Luxembourg).

Sixty-eight percent of respondents thought those bad habits were to blame for high U.S. health costs.

A mere 41 percent of respondents blamed consumers for overusing services.

And the respondents "are correct not to believe that," said Hacker. "Patients have little control over the amount that hospitals and doctors charge. Our exorbitant medical prices are a result of the fragmented structure of our health-care system, not the choices of patients."

more


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Health CARE and health INSURANCE are two different things.
> 
> And people who WORK are not ELIGIBLE for mandated insurance...their income puts them over the income standard (but not their kids..programs for kids and pregnant women have much higher income standards).
> 
> Everybody in this country can get health care. Even if they can't pay for it. So please stop lying and pretending that health CARE is not available, just because people don't have health INSURANCE provided by the state. Also stop pretending that working men and women are the ones burdening the existing medicaid programs..they are not. THOSE men and women go without insurance...the men and women who are ELIGIBLE for health insurance (medicaid) ARE those men and women who are refusing to work. If you are an able bodied adult on MEDICAID, then you are not providing for yourself or your family. And only a tiny percentage of those who are not providing actually have a REASON for not providing. People who are disabled are eligible for other programs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health care in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Orleans, La.   It happened as I watched a 50-something woman walk out, after spending several hours being attended to by volunteer doctors. "She's decided against treatment. A reasonable decision under the circumstances," the doctor tells us as she heads for the next patient. The president of the board of the National Association of Free Health Clinics tells me why: "It's stage four breast cancer, her body is filled with tumors." I don't know when that woman last saw a doctor. But I do know that if she had health insurance, the odds she would have seen a doctor long ago are much higher, and her chances for an earlier diagnosis and treatment would have been far greater.
> 
> After watching for hours as the patients moved through the clinic, it was hard to believe that I was in America.
> 
> Eighty-three percent of the patients they see are employed, they are not accepting other government help on a large scale, not "welfare queens" as some would like to have us believe. They are tax-paying, good, upstanding citizens who are trying to make it and give their kids a better life just like you and me.
> 
> Ninety percent of the patients who came through Saturday's clinic had two or more diagnoses.
> Eighty-two percent had a life-threatening condition such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or hypertension. They are victims of a system built with corporate profits at its center, which long ago forgot the moral imperative that should drive us to show compassion to our fellow men and women.
> 
> Health reform is not about Democrats or Republicans or who can score political points for the next election, it's about people. It's about fairness and justice in a system that knows none. I'd defy even the most hardened capitalist-loving-conservative to do what I did on Saturday and continue to pretend that the system in place right now is working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical libtard response.  Everyone on this planet knows to get checkups for breast cancer. Everyone.  Libtard excuse for everyone not getting their free checkups? Republicans did not opt to beg everyone to get their free checkup earlier.  Libtard solution? Steal money from republicans to give people free health care to replace the free health care being provided by the free clinic in the libtard provided example.
Click to expand...


A really a sad commentary of what conservatism is all about.

That article was written in late 2009. That 50 year old women with stage four breast cancer, her body is filled with tumors is dead and buried. 

The president of the board of the National Association of Free Health Clinics: "I don't know when that woman last saw a doctor. But I do know that if she had health insurance, the odds she would have seen a doctor long ago are much higher, and her chances for an earlier diagnosis and treatment would have been far greater."

Liberalism is all about people. Conservatism is all about material things. 

You folks are the modern day Pharisee. I suggest you grab everything you can in this life, because eternity will be very hot for scum like you.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## Trajan

Bfgrn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Health care in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Orleans, La.   It happened as I watched a 50-something woman walk out, after spending several hours being attended to by volunteer doctors. "She's decided against treatment. A reasonable decision under the circumstances," the doctor tells us as she heads for the next patient. The president of the board of the National Association of Free Health Clinics tells me why: "It's stage four breast cancer, her body is filled with tumors." I don't know when that woman last saw a doctor. But I do know that if she had health insurance, the odds she would have seen a doctor long ago are much higher, and her chances for an earlier diagnosis and treatment would have been far greater.
> 
> After watching for hours as the patients moved through the clinic, it was hard to believe that I was in America.
> 
> Eighty-three percent of the patients they see are employed, they are not accepting other government help on a large scale, not "welfare queens" as some would like to have us believe. They are tax-paying, good, upstanding citizens who are trying to make it and give their kids a better life just like you and me.
> 
> Ninety percent of the patients who came through Saturday's clinic had two or more diagnoses.
> Eighty-two percent had a life-threatening condition such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or hypertension. They are victims of a system built with corporate profits at its center, which long ago forgot the moral imperative that should drive us to show compassion to our fellow men and women.
> 
> Health reform is not about Democrats or Republicans or who can score political points for the next election, it's about people. It's about fairness and justice in a system that knows none. I'd defy even the most hardened capitalist-loving-conservative to do what I did on Saturday and continue to pretend that the system in place right now is working.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical libtard response.  Everyone on this planet knows to get checkups for breast cancer. Everyone.  Libtard excuse for everyone not getting their free checkups? Republicans did not opt to beg everyone to get their free checkup earlier.  Libtard solution? Steal money from republicans to give people free health care to replace the free health care being provided by the free clinic in the libtard provided example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A really a sad commentary of what conservatism is all about.
> 
> That article was written in late 2009. That 50 year old women with stage four breast cancer, her body is filled with tumors is dead and buried.
> 
> The president of the board of the National Association of Free Health Clinics: "I don't know when that woman last saw a doctor. But I do know that if she had health insurance, the odds she would have seen a doctor long ago are much higher, and her chances for an earlier diagnosis and treatment would have been far greater."
> 
> Liberalism is all about people. Conservatism is all about material things.
> 
> You folks are the modern day Pharisee. I suggest you grab everything you can in this life, because eternity will be very hot for scum like you.
> 
> We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
> President John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...


Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

we are way past 'occasional'...


what brown said does have merit, and I can give you another example- when schip (The State Children's Health Insurance Program) rolled out, after approx.  3-5 years it became evident that several hundred thousand ( almost a million in fact if I recall correctly)  folks who's kids were eligible, did not enroll them....they didn't sign them up, they just didn't....so what to do? 

well, if your a democratic and use the old rope a dope, with the old its for the children emotional sob story, you get congress to raise eligibility benchmarks....raise the income level higher, now;  I don't know what that had to do with the issue but thats what they did. Did it solve the original problem? No.....

Why? becasue people are not blocks of wood that do what you want them too, even if its for their own good or their child....there are people how simply do not look out for their own bests interests...and this is life.

 you can only do so much and, absent dragging them out of their houses putting them in a car and making them sign up etc....all you can do is offer the chance to enroll and provide the assistance originally offered. Throwing money willy nilly at issues is just self aggrandizing emotional sap.... it may feel good, but it doesn't make it effective.


----------



## Dragonlady

A friend of mine is an accountant and he had the single mother of a disabled child in to do her tax returns.  The woman was struggling financially and he found earned income credits she wasn't using, as well as disability credits for her son, but the woman didn't want to claim them because she considered any money received from the government to be "welfare" and she wasn't a welfare case.

I have another friend who is very conservative, who is also struggling financially and she wouldn't ever sign up for something like SCHIPP because she believes all government programs are a slippery slope to communism.

There are all kinds of people who escew government programs for all sorts of reasons.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> Liberalism is all about people. Conservatism is all about material things.


Bull shit.  Liberalism is all about being stupid, ignorant, lazy, and good for nothing anchors on society.  The only work a liberal does is steal from people and whine and complain about their shitty little lives.  Conservatism is all about what's really good for people vs. the lunatic programs of the leftists.  Conservatism is about families and defense against the liberal's programs of  theft and destruction.  All the libs are good for is demolition of assets.


----------



## Wolfsister77

RKMBrown said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is all about people. Conservatism is all about material things.
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Liberalism is all about being stupid, ignorant, lazy, and good for nothing anchors on society.  The only work a liberal does is steal from people and whine and complain about their shitty little lives.  Conservatism is all about what's really good people vs. the lunatic programs of the leftists.  Conservatism is about families and defense against the liberal's programs of  theft and destruction.  All the libs are good for is demolition of assets.
Click to expand...


Bullshit, How may Liberals do you know? You are quite the judgemental asshole aren't you?


----------



## Trajan

Dragonlady said:


> A friend of mine is an accountant and he had the single mother of a disabled child in to do her tax returns.  The woman was struggling financially and he found earned income credits she wasn't using, as well as disability credits for her son, but the woman didn't want to claim them because she considered any money received from the government to be "welfare" and she wasn't a welfare case.
> 
> I have another friend who is very conservative, who is also struggling financially and she wouldn't ever sign up for something like SCHIPP because she believes all government programs are a slippery slope to communism.
> 
> There are all kinds of people who escew government programs for all sorts of reasons.



and?


----------



## Dot Com

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And health care at all levels was far more affordable before the federal government got involved.  And survival rates for deadly diseases was higher in the USA than any other place.  Once the government started pulling millions of people into the system, however, with guaranteed payments and the person's ability to pay was no longer a factor, the costs have been spiraling out of control ever since.  It happens every single time the free market system is short circuited by something somebody promises will be better.
> 
> It is no accident that the more Medicaid and Medicare have been expanded, the higher insurance costs have risen and the more costly all forms of healthcare has become.
> 
> The argument can be made that health care would be more affordable and more patient friendly--the health care providers would have to provide a product at a cost people could afford - if the government got out of the business altogether.
> 
> It has to be part of the equation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally false premise AGAIN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High health care costs: Who's to blame?
> 
> Drug companies, insurers, politicians, lawyers, and the bad habits of Americans all figure into high and rising health-care costs. But the biggest contributors to high costsdoctors and hospitalsget off easier among consumers, our survey found.
> 
> "The aim of our health-care system should not be to make a profit for insurance and drug companies. It should be to provide affordable, high-quality care for all Americans," said Andrea Hanson, 31, a college teacher from Murphy, Texas, who responded to our invitation to share her story online.
> 
> The focus on drug and pharmaceutical companies is not surprising because of the way that most Americans pay for health care, said experts we consulted.
> 
> "Americans tend to focus on the bills they pay, not the total cost of health care," said Jacob S. Hacker, professor of political science at Yale University. "And the bills for most Americans ultimately reflect what insurance companies don't cover and what drug companies charge consumers at the pharmacy. They see the big profits these companies earn even as they, the patients, are struggling to pay their bills."
> 
> But a closer look at health-cost trends shows that these players, in roughly descending order, contributed the most to rising costs:
> 
> *Hospitals and doctors.* Doctors and hospitals account for by far the largest share, 52 percent in 2006, of all national health spending. There's abundant evidence that some of that spending is unnecessary. Under the present system, hospitals and doctors earn more money by doing costly interventions than by keeping people healthy. And more medical care doesn't necessarily mean better care, according to research on Medicare expenditures by the Dartmouth Medical School's Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.
> 
> Yet just 59 percent of our survey respondents named hospitals, and 47 percent named doctors, as major spending culprits. (Percentages add up to more than 100 because respondents could select as many factors as they wanted.)
> 
> *Drug companies.* Prescription drugs account for only one-tenth of total health-care expenditures. But drug spending has increased as a share of overall expenditures over the past decade.
> 
> Seventy-six percent of respondents blamed drugmakers generally, and 74 percent said drugmakers charged too much for their products.
> 
> *Insurance companies. *Health-insurance premiums have grown faster than inflation or workers' earnings over the past decade, in parallel with the equally rapid rise in overall health costs. Industry spending on administrative and marketing costs, plus profits, consumes 12 percent of private-insurance premiums.
> 
> Seventy-seven percent of respondents blamed insurance companies in general for high costs, and 70 percent said insurers overcharged for their products and services.
> 
> *Politicians and government regulators.* Although the government directly controls only 46 percent of national health spending, many of its policies affect the bottom line of the health-care industry, for example, by setting Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors on which private insurers base their rates, or by regulating health insurance. Between 1999 and 2006, the health-care lobby spent more than any other business sector, according to a study by the Institute for Health & Socio-Economic Policy, a nonprofit policy and research group.
> 
> Sixty-four percent of respondents faulted politicians and 58 percent faulted government regulators for failing to control health-care costs.
> 
> *Lawyers.* Malpractice-insurance premiums and liability awards account for less than 2 percent of overall health-care spending, according to a 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office. Defensive medicine, the practice of ordering extra tests or procedures to protect against lawsuits, might add another few percentage points, according to some estimates.
> 
> Yet 60 percent of respondents blamed lawyers for high costs, and 69 percent specifically pointed to "frivolous lawsuits."
> 
> *Health-care consumers.* "Modifiable" risk factors, such as eating too much, exercising too little, or smoking, are to blame for an estimated 25 percent of U.S. health-care costs, according to expert estimates. But even if every American took up healthful living overnight, our health-care expenses would still be the second highest in the world (after Luxembourg).
> 
> Sixty-eight percent of respondents thought those bad habits were to blame for high U.S. health costs.
> 
> A mere 41 percent of respondents blamed consumers for overusing services.
> 
> And the respondents "are correct not to believe that," said Hacker. "Patients have little control over the amount that hospitals and doctors charge. Our exorbitant medical prices are a result of the fragmented structure of our health-care system, not the choices of patients."
> 
> more
Click to expand...

is it any wonder FoxFyre didn't didn't supply a link after giving her conservative corporate merkin manifesto?  lol


----------



## RKMBrown

Wolfsister77 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is all about people. Conservatism is all about material things.
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Liberalism is all about being stupid, ignorant, lazy, and good for nothing anchors on society.  The only work a liberal does is steal from people and whine and complain about their shitty little lives.  Conservatism is all about what's really good people vs. the lunatic programs of the leftists.  Conservatism is about families and defense against the liberal's programs of  theft and destruction.  All the libs are good for is demolition of assets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit, How may Liberals do you know? You are quite the judgemental asshole aren't you?
Click to expand...


You want to take my money away from my children so you can buy your drugs?  Enjoy it with the special sauce.


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is all about people. Conservatism is all about material things.
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Liberalism is all about being stupid, ignorant, lazy, and good for nothing anchors on society.  The only work a liberal does is steal from people and whine and complain about their shitty little lives.  Conservatism is all about what's really good people vs. the lunatic programs of the leftists.  Conservatism is about families and defense against the liberal's programs of  theft and destruction.  All the libs are good for is demolition of assets.
Click to expand...


Classic example:

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith


----------



## Wolfsister77

RKMBrown said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Liberalism is all about being stupid, ignorant, lazy, and good for nothing anchors on society.  The only work a liberal does is steal from people and whine and complain about their shitty little lives.  Conservatism is all about what's really good people vs. the lunatic programs of the leftists.  Conservatism is about families and defense against the liberal's programs of  theft and destruction.  All the libs are good for is demolition of assets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, How may Liberals do you know? You are quite the judgemental asshole aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to take my money away from my children so you can buy your drugs?  Enjoy it with the special sauce.
Click to expand...


It is really sad there are people like you in the world. I'm moving on. Have a nice day.


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Liberalism is all about being stupid, ignorant, lazy, and good for nothing anchors on society.  The only work a liberal does is steal from people and whine and complain about their shitty little lives.  Conservatism is all about what's really good people vs. the lunatic programs of the leftists.  Conservatism is about families and defense against the liberal's programs of  theft and destruction.  All the libs are good for is demolition of assets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, How may Liberals do you know? You are quite the judgemental asshole aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to take my money away from my children so you can buy your drugs?  Enjoy it with the special sauce.
Click to expand...


If anyone is going to take away your children's and my children's money it's Republicans. 

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, How may Liberals do you know? You are quite the judgemental asshole aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to take my money away from my children so you can buy your drugs?  Enjoy it with the special sauce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anyone is going to take away your children's and my children's money it's Republicans.
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> "Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
> Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
> 
> Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
> Charles Krauthammer
Click to expand...

And 51% of American workers pay ZERO % EFFECTIVE PERSONAL INCOME TAX.
And 41 MILLION Americans on are food stamps.
And 9 MILLION Americans are on Disability.
The debt is due to the people not pulling their weight, and instead demanding the 49% row the boat for them.


----------



## RKMBrown

Wolfsister77 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, How may Liberals do you know? You are quite the judgemental asshole aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to take my money away from my children so you can buy your drugs?  Enjoy it with the special sauce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is really sad there are people like you in the world. I'm moving on. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


What's wrong don't have the stomach to face the people you steal from?


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to take my money away from my children so you can buy your drugs?  Enjoy it with the special sauce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone is going to take away your children's and my children's money it's Republicans.
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> "Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
> Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
> 
> Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
> Charles Krauthammer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And 51% of American workers pay ZERO % EFFECTIVE PERSONAL INCOME TAX.
> And 41 MILLION Americans on are food stamps.
> And 9 MILLION Americans are on Disability.
> The debt is due to the people not pulling their weight, and instead demanding the 49% row the boat for them.
Click to expand...


----------



## American_Jihad

*Why Liberals Behave the Way They Do*

August 16, 2012 By Ann Coulter






Why Liberals Behave the Way They Do | FrontPage Magazine

xXxWARNINGxXx Adult pic of a couple of liberals...



...


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone is going to take away your children's and my children's money it's Republicans.
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> "Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
> Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
> 
> &#8220;Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
> Charles Krauthammer
> 
> 
> 
> And 51% of American workers pay ZERO % EFFECTIVE PERSONAL INCOME TAX.
> And 41 MILLION Americans on are food stamps.
> And 9 MILLION Americans are on Disability.
> The debt is due to the people not pulling their weight, and instead demanding the 49% row the boat for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

All the brown shit in your chart?  Yeah, most of that money is the tax cuts for middle class income earners.


----------



## numan

Wolfsister77 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is all about people. Conservatism is all about material things.
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Liberalism is all about being stupid, ignorant, lazy, and good for nothing anchors on society.  The only work a liberal does is steal from people and whine and complain about their shitty little lives.  Conservatism is all about what's really good people vs. the lunatic programs of the leftists.  Conservatism is about families and defense against the liberal's programs of  theft and destruction.  All the libs are good for is demolition of assets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, How may Liberals do you know? You are quite the judgemental asshole aren't you?
Click to expand...

Don't expect too much of him. He is a Texan.

However, he is an excellent example of the fact that the United States is not a nation. America was founded, and has always functioned and been run, by scoundrels, scammers and con-artists. The whole mentality of its upper-classes is getting rich quick, and then ferociously clutching their ill-gotten gains. 

America has no national cohesion; it is, in the Chinese phrase, "a plate of loose sand" -- individual grains rolling about, with no sense of unity with fellow citizens. Getting people to co-operate requires the galvanic shocks of mania and hysteria of the ersatz religion of Patriotism, which for brief periods can mimic National Life, and bring the moribund Body Politic to some clumsy spasms of co-ordinated activity. 

In real nations, such as Finland or Japan or war-time Britain, there is a deeply felt well of national feeling -- the sense of "we're all in it together." It is utterly different from the Texas-style phony-baloney Jingoism which is a shame to everyone in the USA. 

This utter lack of true national feeling explains why the USA is an amazingly rich country which nevertheless consistently, in almost all areas, is at the bottom of the heap in social standards among all the industrially advanced countries.

*AVE CAESAR

No bitterness: our ancestors did it.
They were only ignorant and hopeful, they wanted freedom but wealth, too.
Their children will learn to hope for a Caesar.
Or rather -- for we are not aquiline Romans but soft mixed colonists --
Some kindly Sicilian tyrant who'll keep
Poverty and Carthage off until the Romans arrive.
We are easy to manage, a gregarious people,
Full of sentiment, clever at mechanics -- and we love our luxuries.*
_---Robinson Jeffers_

.


----------



## RKMBrown

numan said:


> However, he is an excellent example of the fact that the United States is not a nation. America was founded, and has always functioned and been run, by scoundrels, scammers and con-artists.


lol... The country is being run by... a collection of "scoundrels, scammers, and con-artists."  

You mean lawyers?


----------



## Trajan

Bfgrn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone is going to take away your children's and my children's money it's Republicans.
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> "Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
> Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
> 
> Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
> Charles Krauthammer
> 
> 
> 
> And 51% of American workers pay ZERO % EFFECTIVE PERSONAL INCOME TAX.
> And 41 MILLION Americans on are food stamps.
> And 9 MILLION Americans are on Disability.
> The debt is due to the people not pulling their weight, and instead demanding the 49% row the boat for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


your "post" doesn't refute a thing he said....


----------



## Trajan

Bfgrn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, How may Liberals do you know? You are quite the judgemental asshole aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to take my money away from my children so you can buy your drugs?  Enjoy it with the special sauce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anyone is going to take away your children's and my children's money it's Republicans.
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> "Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
> Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
> 
> Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
> Charles Krauthammer
Click to expand...


your post makes zero sense, one one hand you post-
_
If anyone is going to take away your children's and my children's money it's Republicans. _

then post the evils of tax cits, tax cuts allow people to keep more of what they earn, instead of handing it over to the feds to redistribute, so in effect you've contradicted yourself.  

BUT in spite of that, you do know that the top quartiles pay more taxes in any comparative basis than they did in say 86, right? No you don't, so don't bother answering.


----------



## Trajan

Trajan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical libtard response.  Everyone on this planet knows to get checkups for breast cancer. Everyone.  Libtard excuse for everyone not getting their free checkups? Republicans did not opt to beg everyone to get their free checkup earlier.  Libtard solution? Steal money from republicans to give people free health care to replace the free health care being provided by the free clinic in the libtard provided example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A really a sad commentary of what conservatism is all about.
> 
> That article was written in late 2009. That 50 year old women with stage four breast cancer, her body is filled with tumors is dead and buried.
> 
> The president of the board of the National Association of Free Health Clinics: "I don't know when that woman last saw a doctor. But I do know that if she had health insurance, the odds she would have seen a doctor long ago are much higher, and her chances for an earlier diagnosis and treatment would have been far greater."
> 
> Liberalism is all about people. Conservatism is all about material things.
> 
> You folks are the modern day Pharisee. I suggest you grab everything you can in this life, because eternity will be very hot for scum like you.
> 
> We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> we are way past 'occasional'...
> 
> 
> what brown said does have merit, and I can give you another example- when schip (The State Children's Health Insurance Program) rolled out, after approx.  3-5 years it became evident that several hundred thousand ( almost a million in fact if I recall correctly)  folks who's kids were eligible, did not enroll them....they didn't sign them up, they just didn't....so what to do?
> 
> well, if your a democratic and use the old rope a dope, with the old its for the children emotional sob story, you get congress to raise eligibility benchmarks....raise the income level higher, now;  I don't know what that had to do with the issue but thats what they did. Did it solve the original problem? No.....
> 
> Why? becasue people are not blocks of wood that do what you want them too, even if its for their own good or their child....there are people how simply do not look out for their own bests interests...and this is life.
> 
> you can only do so much and, absent dragging them out of their houses putting them in a car and making them sign up etc....all you can do is offer the chance to enroll and provide the assistance originally offered. Throwing money willy nilly at issues is just self aggrandizing emotional sap.... it may feel good, but it doesn't make it effective.
Click to expand...




Dragonlady said:


> A friend of mine is an accountant and he had the single mother of a disabled child in to do her tax returns.  The woman was struggling financially and he found earned income credits she wasn't using, as well as disability credits for her son, but the woman didn't want to claim them because she considered any money received from the government to be "welfare" and she wasn't a welfare case.
> 
> I have another friend who is very conservative, who is also struggling financially and she wouldn't ever sign up for something like SCHIPP because she believes all government programs are a slippery slope to communism.
> 
> There are all kinds of people who escew government programs for all sorts of reasons.



hey Bfgrn, I see you thanked her " response"  to my post, but you don't have anything to say yourself?


----------



## westwall

Trajan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to take my money away from my children so you can buy your drugs?  Enjoy it with the special sauce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone is going to take away your children's and my children's money it's Republicans.
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> "Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
> Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
> 
> Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
> Charles Krauthammer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your post makes zero sense, one one hand you post-
> _
> If anyone is going to take away your children's and my children's money it's Republicans. _
> 
> then post the evils of tax cits, tax cuts allow people to keep more of what they earn, instead of handing it over to the feds to redistribute, so in effect you've contradicted yourself.
> 
> BUT in spite of that, you do know that the top quartiles pay more taxes in any comparative basis than they did in say 86, right? No you don't, so don't bother answering.
Click to expand...







bfgrn posts whatever his handlers tell him to post.  He has no brain of his own...


----------



## Bfgrn

Trajan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And 51% of American workers pay ZERO % EFFECTIVE PERSONAL INCOME TAX.
> And 41 MILLION Americans on are food stamps.
> And 9 MILLION Americans are on Disability.
> The debt is due to the people not pulling their weight, and instead demanding the 49% row the boat for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your "post" doesn't refute a thing he said....
Click to expand...


SO, the debt will be paid down by WHOM?

Social programs are not the cause of the debt held by the public. And Social Security has helped lower the deficit.

Plus his figures on federal taxes are wrong, typical of the right.

Disability is up due to demographics. 

Social Security Disability Enrollment Rising Due To Demographic Trends: CBO

CBO - Policy Options for the Social Security Disability Insurance Program
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43421-DisabilityInsurance_screen.pdf

"The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, found that the biggest jumps in the disabled population came from aging Baby Boomers. From 1996 through 2009 -- "the approximate period during which the baby-boom generation entered their 50s -- the share of disabled worker benefits awarded to older workers (age 45 and older) rose from 67 percent to 76 percent," the report said.

Meanwhile, the share of benefits going to younger workers -- between the ages of 25 to 44 -- fell from 31 percent to 22 percent.

"Baby boomers' aging would have boosted enrollment in the DI program even if no other factors had changed," the report said.

Add to that the fact that more women have entered the workforce since 1970, boosting the working population and creating a larger pool of people who can become disabled.

A change in the law during the *Reagan *administration that allowed more people with mental disabilities and musculoskeletal problems to qualify also increased the number of people on disability. In 1990, such people accounted for 38 percent of workers in the SSDI program. In 2010, the number had risen to 54 percent."


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your "post" doesn't refute a thing he said....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO, the debt will be paid down by WHOM?
> 
> Social programs are not the cause of the debt held by the public. And Social Security has helped lower the deficit.
> 
> Plus his figures on federal taxes are wrong, typical of the right.
> 
> Disability is up due to demographics.
> 
> Social Security Disability Enrollment Rising Due To Demographic Trends: CBO
> 
> CBO - Policy Options for the Social Security Disability Insurance Program
> http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43421-DisabilityInsurance_screen.pdf
> 
> "The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, found that the biggest jumps in the disabled population came from aging Baby Boomers. From 1996 through 2009 -- "the approximate period during which the baby-boom generation entered their 50s -- the share of disabled worker benefits awarded to older workers (age 45 and older) rose from 67 percent to 76 percent," the report said.
> 
> Meanwhile, the share of benefits going to younger workers -- between the ages of 25 to 44 -- fell from 31 percent to 22 percent.
> 
> "Baby boomers' aging would have boosted enrollment in the DI program even if no other factors had changed," the report said.
> 
> Add to that the fact that more women have entered the workforce since 1970, boosting the working population and creating a larger pool of people who can become disabled.
> 
> A change in the law during the *Reagan *administration that allowed more people with mental disabilities and musculoskeletal problems to qualify also increased the number of people on disability. In 1990, such people accounted for 38 percent of workers in the SSDI program. In 2010, the number had risen to 54 percent."
Click to expand...


You still did not refute anything I said.  Do you really not know who pays the debt?  Where do you think government revenue comes from?


----------



## Bfgrn

westwall said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone is going to take away your children's and my children's money it's Republicans.
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> "Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
> Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
> 
> Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
> Charles Krauthammer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your post makes zero sense, one one hand you post-
> _
> If anyone is going to take away your children's and my children's money it's Republicans. _
> 
> then post the evils of tax cits, tax cuts allow people to keep more of what they earn, instead of handing it over to the feds to redistribute, so in effect you've contradicted yourself.
> 
> BUT in spite of that, you do know that the top quartiles pay more taxes in any comparative basis than they did in say 86, right? No you don't, so don't bother answering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bfgrn posts whatever his handlers tell him to post.  He has no brain of his own...
Click to expand...


So says the pseudo geologist who doesn't comprehend the dangers of dumping garbage and waste in streams.


----------



## westwall

Bfgrn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> your post makes zero sense, one one hand you post-
> _
> If anyone is going to take away your children's and my children's money it's Republicans. _
> 
> then post the evils of tax cits, tax cuts allow people to keep more of what they earn, instead of handing it over to the feds to redistribute, so in effect you've contradicted yourself.
> 
> BUT in spite of that, you do know that the top quartiles pay more taxes in any comparative basis than they did in say 86, right? No you don't, so don't bother answering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bfgrn posts whatever his handlers tell him to post.  He has no brain of his own...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So says the pseudo geologist who doesn't comprehend the dangers of dumping garbage and waste in streams.
Click to expand...








I've spent nearly my whole career cleaning up messes of just that type little one.  How does it feel to be a pseudo environmentalist who supported one of the most environmentally damaging programs ever foisted off on the American public?  Do you realize that through your ignorant efforts you and your kind did more environmental damage in ten years with you ridiculous MTBE mandates than Big Oil has done in over 100 years?

You should be so proud of your accomplishments...............


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And 51% of American workers pay ZERO % EFFECTIVE PERSONAL INCOME TAX.
> And 41 MILLION Americans on are food stamps.
> And 9 MILLION Americans are on Disability.
> The debt is due to the people not pulling their weight, and instead demanding the 49% row the boat for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the brown shit in your chart?  Yeah, most of that money is the tax cuts for middle class income earners.
Click to expand...


Strange that the chart does not include Obamacare or Medicare or Medicaid or the stimulus package, most of which is off budget.  Or the fact that the Bush tax cuts have been grossly misrepresented by the leftwing media and others who are dedicated to trashing the Bush years.

Believe me, I have a lot of quarrels with a number of Bush policies on this or that, but his tax policy is not among them:



> Nearly all of the conventional wisdom about the Bush tax cuts is wrong. In reality:
> &#8226;	The tax cuts have not substantially reduced current tax revenues, which were in fact not far from the 2000 pre-tax cut baseline and over the 2003 pre-tax cut baseline in 2006;
> &#8226;	The increased child tax credit, 10 percent tax bracket, and fix of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) reduced tax revenues much more than most of the "tax cuts for the rich";
> &#8226;	Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts; and
> &#8226;	The tax cuts shifted even more of the income tax burden toward the rich.
> Bush Tax Cut Myths | Tax Revenue Increases | Capital Gains Tax



A more recent discussion in Forbes states that in the next four years following the Bush tax cuts in 2003, treasury revenues increased by 44%.  The only thing stopping that trend was the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and no economist lays that at the feet of the Bush tax cuts or any policy that was initiated in the Bush adminisration.

Further the top 1% of earners did in fact do very well over those same four years but they saw their tax bill increase by more than 1887% over the 25-50% of earners.
All the details can be found here:

After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased - Forbes

Which is another reason to despise a liberalism that cannot look objectively at the economic damage it does while it continues to blame somebody else, usually fallaciously.


----------



## numan

RKMBrown said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, he is an excellent example of the fact that the United States is not a nation. America was founded, and has always functioned and been run, by scoundrels, scammers and con-artists.
> 
> 
> 
> lol... The country is being run by... a collection of "scoundrels, scammers, and con-artists."
> 
> You mean lawyers?
Click to expand...

They are certainly a significant subset of the "scoundrels, scammers and con-artists."

*If the Titanic had been filled with lawyers, what would you call it ?

Ans.: A beginning.*
.


----------



## Trajan

Bfgrn said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your "post" doesn't refute a thing he said....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO, the debt will be paid down by WHOM?
> 
> Social programs are not the cause of the debt held by the public. And Social Security has helped lower the deficit.
> 
> Plus his figures on federal taxes are wrong, typical of the right.
> 
> Disability is up due to demographics.
> 
> Social Security Disability Enrollment Rising Due To Demographic Trends: CBO
> 
> CBO - Policy Options for the Social Security Disability Insurance Program
> http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43421-DisabilityInsurance_screen.pdf
> 
> "The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, found that the biggest jumps in the disabled population came from aging Baby Boomers. From 1996 through 2009 -- "the approximate period during which the baby-boom generation entered their 50s -- the share of disabled worker benefits awarded to older workers (age 45 and older) rose from 67 percent to 76 percent," the report said.
> 
> Meanwhile, the share of benefits going to younger workers -- between the ages of 25 to 44 -- fell from 31 percent to 22 percent.
> 
> "Baby boomers' aging would have boosted enrollment in the DI program even if no other factors had changed," the report said.
> 
> Add to that the fact that more women have entered the workforce since 1970, boosting the working population and creating a larger pool of people who can become disabled.
> 
> A change in the law during the *Reagan *administration that allowed more people with mental disabilities and musculoskeletal problems to qualify also increased the number of people on disability. In 1990, such people accounted for 38 percent of workers in the SSDI program. In 2010, the number had risen to 54 percent."
Click to expand...


he said zero % personal effective income tax...hello, read what he wrote....in fact half of that 50% who pay zero effective personal income tax also by virtue of the Earned income credit get back $$ that basically zeros/returns the their fica withholding, they are in real effect contributing zero to  SSI and medicare.  

and the rest of that means what exactly? what is your point?


----------



## Trajan

Trajan said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A really a sad commentary of what conservatism is all about.
> 
> That article was written in late 2009. That 50 year old women with stage four breast cancer, her body is filled with tumors is dead and buried.
> 
> The president of the board of the National Association of Free Health Clinics: "I don't know when that woman last saw a doctor. But I do know that if she had health insurance, the odds she would have seen a doctor long ago are much higher, and her chances for an earlier diagnosis and treatment would have been far greater."
> 
> Liberalism is all about people. Conservatism is all about material things.
> 
> You folks are the modern day Pharisee. I suggest you grab everything you can in this life, because eternity will be very hot for scum like you.
> 
> We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> we are way past 'occasional'...
> 
> 
> what brown said does have merit, and I can give you another example- when schip (The State Children's Health Insurance Program) rolled out, after approx.  3-5 years it became evident that several hundred thousand ( almost a million in fact if I recall correctly)  folks who's kids were eligible, did not enroll them....they didn't sign them up, they just didn't....so what to do?
> 
> well, if your a democratic and use the old rope a dope, with the old its for the children emotional sob story, you get congress to raise eligibility benchmarks....raise the income level higher, now;  I don't know what that had to do with the issue but thats what they did. Did it solve the original problem? No.....
> 
> Why? becasue people are not blocks of wood that do what you want them too, even if its for their own good or their child....there are people how simply do not look out for their own bests interests...and this is life.
> 
> you can only do so much and, absent dragging them out of their houses putting them in a car and making them sign up etc....all you can do is offer the chance to enroll and provide the assistance originally offered. Throwing money willy nilly at issues is just self aggrandizing emotional sap.... it may feel good, but it doesn't make it effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A friend of mine is an accountant and he had the single mother of a disabled child in to do her tax returns.  The woman was struggling financially and he found earned income credits she wasn't using, as well as disability credits for her son, but the woman didn't want to claim them because she considered any money received from the government to be "welfare" and she wasn't a welfare case.
> 
> I have another friend who is very conservative, who is also struggling financially and she wouldn't ever sign up for something like SCHIPP because she believes all government programs are a slippery slope to communism.
> 
> There are all kinds of people who escew government programs for all sorts of reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hey Bfgrn, I see you thanked her " response"  to my post, but you don't have anything to say yourself?
Click to expand...


so,  back to our conversation....well?


----------



## Bfgrn

Trajan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> your "post" doesn't refute a thing he said....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SO, the debt will be paid down by WHOM?
> 
> Social programs are not the cause of the debt held by the public. And Social Security has helped lower the deficit.
> 
> Plus his figures on federal taxes are wrong, typical of the right.
> 
> Disability is up due to demographics.
> 
> Social Security Disability Enrollment Rising Due To Demographic Trends: CBO
> 
> CBO - Policy Options for the Social Security Disability Insurance Program
> http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43421-DisabilityInsurance_screen.pdf
> 
> "The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, found that the biggest jumps in the disabled population came from aging Baby Boomers. From 1996 through 2009 -- "the approximate period during which the baby-boom generation entered their 50s -- the share of disabled worker benefits awarded to older workers (age 45 and older) rose from 67 percent to 76 percent," the report said.
> 
> Meanwhile, the share of benefits going to younger workers -- between the ages of 25 to 44 -- fell from 31 percent to 22 percent.
> 
> "Baby boomers' aging would have boosted enrollment in the DI program even if no other factors had changed," the report said.
> 
> Add to that the fact that more women have entered the workforce since 1970, boosting the working population and creating a larger pool of people who can become disabled.
> 
> A change in the law during the *Reagan *administration that allowed more people with mental disabilities and musculoskeletal problems to qualify also increased the number of people on disability. In 1990, such people accounted for 38 percent of workers in the SSDI program. In 2010, the number had risen to 54 percent."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he said zero % personal effective income tax...hello, read what he wrote....in fact half of that 50% who pay zero effective personal income tax also by virtue of the Earned income credit get back $$ that basically zeros/returns the their fica withholding, they are in real effect contributing zero to  SSI and medicare.
> 
> and the rest of that means what exactly? what is your point?
Click to expand...


Guess you didn't bother to check out my link...how embarrassing for you.

Envious of the poor, it can't get any lower than that.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the brown shit in your chart?  Yeah, most of that money is the tax cuts for middle class income earners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange that the chart does not include Obamacare or Medicare or Medicaid or the stimulus package, most of which is off budget.  Or the fact that the Bush tax cuts have been grossly misrepresented by the leftwing media and others who are dedicated to trashing the Bush years.
> 
> Believe me, I have a lot of quarrels with a number of Bush policies on this or that, but his tax policy is not among them:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly all of the conventional wisdom about the Bush tax cuts is wrong. In reality:
> 	The tax cuts have not substantially reduced current tax revenues, which were in fact not far from the 2000 pre-tax cut baseline and over the 2003 pre-tax cut baseline in 2006;
> 	The increased child tax credit, 10 percent tax bracket, and fix of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) reduced tax revenues much more than most of the "tax cuts for the rich";
> 	Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts; and
> 	The tax cuts shifted even more of the income tax burden toward the rich.
> Bush Tax Cut Myths | Tax Revenue Increases | Capital Gains Tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A more recent discussion in Forbes states that in the next four years following the Bush tax cuts in 2003, treasury revenues increased by 44%.  The only thing stopping that trend was the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and no economist lays that at the feet of the Bush tax cuts or any policy that was initiated in the Bush adminisration.
> 
> Further the top 1% of earners did in fact do very well over those same four years but they saw their tax bill increase by more than 1887% over the 25-50% of earners.
> All the details can be found here:
> 
> After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased - Forbes
> 
> Which is another reason to despise a liberalism that cannot look objectively at the economic damage it does while it continues to blame somebody else, usually fallaciously.
Click to expand...


The stimulus is in that chart.
OFF budget? You mean the War in Iraq which will end up costing us 3 trillion dollars?

Here is some wisdom that flies in the face of your lying Heritage Foundation. And it is not from a liberal.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Here are some other truths and charts you right winger who are NOT liberals in any way, shape or form don't want to confront.

Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a *30-year conservative ascendancy*."
Charles Krauthammer

What does that 30-year conservative ascendancy look like?






Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

More 30-year conservative ascendancy...


----------



## Trajan

Bfgrn said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO, the debt will be paid down by WHOM?
> 
> Social programs are not the cause of the debt held by the public. And Social Security has helped lower the deficit.
> 
> Plus his figures on federal taxes are wrong, typical of the right.
> 
> Disability is up due to demographics.
> 
> Social Security Disability Enrollment Rising Due To Demographic Trends: CBO
> 
> CBO - Policy Options for the Social Security Disability Insurance Program
> http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43421-DisabilityInsurance_screen.pdf
> 
> "The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, found that the biggest jumps in the disabled population came from aging Baby Boomers. From 1996 through 2009 -- "the approximate period during which the baby-boom generation entered their 50s -- the share of disabled worker benefits awarded to older workers (age 45 and older) rose from 67 percent to 76 percent," the report said.
> 
> Meanwhile, the share of benefits going to younger workers -- between the ages of 25 to 44 -- fell from 31 percent to 22 percent.
> 
> "Baby boomers' aging would have boosted enrollment in the DI program even if no other factors had changed," the report said.
> 
> Add to that the fact that more women have entered the workforce since 1970, boosting the working population and creating a larger pool of people who can become disabled.
> 
> A change in the law during the *Reagan *administration that allowed more people with mental disabilities and musculoskeletal problems to qualify also increased the number of people on disability. In 1990, such people accounted for 38 percent of workers in the SSDI program. In 2010, the number had risen to 54 percent."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he said zero % personal effective income tax...hello, read what he wrote....in fact half of that 50% who pay zero effective personal income tax also by virtue of the Earned income credit get back $$ that basically zeros/returns the their fica withholding, they are in real effect contributing zero to  SSI and medicare.
> 
> and the rest of that means what exactly? what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess you didn't bother to check out my link...how embarrassing for you.
> 
> Envious of the poor, it can't get any lower than that.
Click to expand...



sure I looked at it, example-
_
These figures cover only the federal income tax and ignore the substantial amounts of other federal taxes  especially the payroll tax  that many of these households pay. 
_

and? 

I don't see them classifying _exactly_, what type of _other federal taxes_ they pay, above is the only reference I saw with any specificity...and I spoke to that, exactly. 

keep your snotty comments to yourself, try and have an adult conversation...ok? 


so.....


----------



## Trajan

Trajan said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> we are way past 'occasional'...
> 
> 
> what brown said does have merit, and I can give you another example- when schip (The State Children's Health Insurance Program) rolled out, after approx.  3-5 years it became evident that several hundred thousand ( almost a million in fact if I recall correctly)  folks who's kids were eligible, did not enroll them....they didn't sign them up, they just didn't....so what to do?
> 
> well, if your a democratic and use the old rope a dope, with the old its for the children emotional sob story, you get congress to raise eligibility benchmarks....raise the income level higher, now;  I don't know what that had to do with the issue but thats what they did. Did it solve the original problem? No.....
> 
> Why? becasue people are not blocks of wood that do what you want them too, even if its for their own good or their child....there are people how simply do not look out for their own bests interests...and this is life.
> 
> you can only do so much and, absent dragging them out of their houses putting them in a car and making them sign up etc....all you can do is offer the chance to enroll and provide the assistance originally offered. Throwing money willy nilly at issues is just self aggrandizing emotional sap.... it may feel good, but it doesn't make it effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A friend of mine is an accountant and he had the single mother of a disabled child in to do her tax returns.  The woman was struggling financially and he found earned income credits she wasn't using, as well as disability credits for her son, but the woman didn't want to claim them because she considered any money received from the government to be "welfare" and she wasn't a welfare case.
> 
> I have another friend who is very conservative, who is also struggling financially and she wouldn't ever sign up for something like SCHIPP because she believes all government programs are a slippery slope to communism.
> 
> There are all kinds of people who escew government programs for all sorts of reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hey Bfgrn, I see you thanked her " response"  to my post, but you don't have anything to say yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so,  back to our conversation....well?
Click to expand...


still waiting.....


----------



## Trajan

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the brown shit in your chart?  Yeah, most of that money is the tax cuts for middle class income earners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strange that the chart does not include Obamacare or Medicare or Medicaid or the stimulus package, most of which is off budget.  Or the fact that the Bush tax cuts have been grossly misrepresented by the leftwing media and others who are dedicated to trashing the Bush years.
> 
> Believe me, I have a lot of quarrels with a number of Bush policies on this or that, but his tax policy is not among them:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly all of the conventional wisdom about the Bush tax cuts is wrong. In reality:
> &#8226;	The tax cuts have not substantially reduced current tax revenues, which were in fact not far from the 2000 pre-tax cut baseline and over the 2003 pre-tax cut baseline in 2006;
> &#8226;	The increased child tax credit, 10 percent tax bracket, and fix of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) reduced tax revenues much more than most of the "tax cuts for the rich";
> &#8226;	Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts; and
> &#8226;	The tax cuts shifted even more of the income tax burden toward the rich.
> Bush Tax Cut Myths | Tax Revenue Increases | Capital Gains Tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A more recent discussion in Forbes states that in the next four years following the Bush tax cuts in 2003, treasury revenues increased by 44%.  The only thing stopping that trend was the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and no economist lays that at the feet of the Bush tax cuts or any policy that was initiated in the Bush adminisration.
> 
> Further the top 1% of earners did in fact do very well over those same four years but they saw their tax bill increase by more than 1887% over the 25-50% of earners.
> All the details can be found here:
> 
> After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased - Forbes
> 
> Which is another reason to despise a liberalism that cannot look objectively at the economic damage it does while it continues to blame somebody else, usually fallaciously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The stimulus is in that chart.
> OFF budget? *You mean the War in Iraq which will end up costing us 3 trillion dollars?*
> 
> Here is some wisdom that flies in the face of your lying Heritage Foundation. And it is not from a liberal.
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> Here are some other truths and charts you right winger who are NOT liberals in any way, shape or form don't want to confront.
> 
> &#8220;Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a *30-year conservative ascendancy*."
> Charles Krauthammer
> 
> What does that 30-year conservative ascendancy look like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a &#8220;tax and spend&#8221; policy, to a &#8220;borrow and spend&#8221; policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> More 30-year conservative ascendancy...
Click to expand...







> You mean the War in Iraq which will end up costing us 3 trillion dollars?



end up? that means what exactly? 

and you know, this debt issue is not a card you should be playing, I mean seriously, unless you want to here and now take obama to task for his deficit spending and adding to the debt. Well, maybe you do, do you?

I also notice you did not address her link either to wit;

_As Table 2 shows very clearly, the top 0.1% and top 1% of earners (which includes all millionaires and billionaires) had major increases in their income tax payments between 2003 and 2007, both in absolute dollars as well as in their % contribution to total taxes while the 25-50% income group and the bottom 50% income group saw their share of total taxes fall and their absolute tax payments increased trivially.  When we look at the daily cost of increased taxes for the average tax payer in each income bracket we see that the top 0.1% paid $1,887 per day more in 2007 than in 2003.  (Remember this is despite the fact that their tax rates were reduced.)  _

looks and sounds progressive to me*shrugs*


and what on earth does incarceration rate have to do with this discussion?


----------



## Bfgrn

westwall said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> bfgrn posts whatever his handlers tell him to post.  He has no brain of his own...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So says the pseudo geologist who doesn't comprehend the dangers of dumping garbage and waste in streams.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've spent nearly my whole career cleaning up messes of just that type little one.  How does it feel to be a pseudo environmentalist who supported one of the most environmentally damaging programs ever foisted off on the American public?  Do you realize that through your ignorant efforts you and your kind did more environmental damage in ten years with you ridiculous MTBE mandates than Big Oil has done in over 100 years?
> 
> You should be so proud of your accomplishments...............
Click to expand...


The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA) did not mandate MTBE.

Next...


----------



## Bfgrn

Trajan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strange that the chart does not include Obamacare or Medicare or Medicaid or the stimulus package, most of which is off budget.  Or the fact that the Bush tax cuts have been grossly misrepresented by the leftwing media and others who are dedicated to trashing the Bush years.
> 
> Believe me, I have a lot of quarrels with a number of Bush policies on this or that, but his tax policy is not among them:
> 
> 
> 
> A more recent discussion in Forbes states that in the next four years following the Bush tax cuts in 2003, treasury revenues increased by 44%.  The only thing stopping that trend was the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and no economist lays that at the feet of the Bush tax cuts or any policy that was initiated in the Bush adminisration.
> 
> Further the top 1% of earners did in fact do very well over those same four years but they saw their tax bill increase by more than 1887% over the 25-50% of earners.
> All the details can be found here:
> 
> After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased - Forbes
> 
> Which is another reason to despise a liberalism that cannot look objectively at the economic damage it does while it continues to blame somebody else, usually fallaciously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stimulus is in that chart.
> OFF budget? *You mean the War in Iraq which will end up costing us 3 trillion dollars?*
> 
> Here is some wisdom that flies in the face of your lying Heritage Foundation. And it is not from a liberal.
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> Here are some other truths and charts you right winger who are NOT liberals in any way, shape or form don't want to confront.
> 
> Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a *30-year conservative ascendancy*."
> Charles Krauthammer
> 
> What does that 30-year conservative ascendancy look like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> More 30-year conservative ascendancy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the War in Iraq which will end up costing us 3 trillion dollars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> end up? that means what exactly?
> 
> and you know, this debt issue is not a card you should be playing, I mean seriously, unless you want to here and now take obama to task for his deficit spending and adding to the debt. Well, maybe you do, do you?
Click to expand...


It means the cost has not ended, and it will not end in our lifetime. The costs will continue as we are forced to replace equipment lost or worn out, provide lifetime medical care for the injured and other expenses that continue...The $3 Trillion War

Our debt was created by Republicans. If Obama spent nothing, the debt would continue to grow. He inherited an economy that was moribund.

Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for 12 years, and the White House for 8 years...we had ZERO job growth in the 2000's...






Obama and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 2 years. What did they do?

Obama and Democrats put us on *The Extended-Baseline Scenario* trajectory. If Congress does nothing the Extended-Baseline Scenario is already in place. 

IF the Bush tax cuts don't expire and the AHA is not fully implemented or repealed the *The Alternative Fiscal Scenario* is the trajectory Teapublicans will take us if they gain enough power. 

the *CBO* lays it out perfectly clear...CRYSTAL.

Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBOs Long-Term Budget Scenarios
(Percentage of gross domestic product)





The chart shows 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican scenario.


*The Extended-Baseline Scenario* adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.

*The Alternative Fiscal Scenario*
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicares payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the brown shit in your chart?  Yeah, most of that money is the tax cuts for middle class income earners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strange that the chart does not include Obamacare or Medicare or Medicaid or the stimulus package, most of which is off budget.  Or the fact that the Bush tax cuts have been grossly misrepresented by the leftwing media and others who are dedicated to trashing the Bush years.
> 
> Believe me, I have a lot of quarrels with a number of Bush policies on this or that, but his tax policy is not among them:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly all of the conventional wisdom about the Bush tax cuts is wrong. In reality:
> &#8226;	The tax cuts have not substantially reduced current tax revenues, which were in fact not far from the 2000 pre-tax cut baseline and over the 2003 pre-tax cut baseline in 2006;
> &#8226;	The increased child tax credit, 10 percent tax bracket, and fix of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) reduced tax revenues much more than most of the "tax cuts for the rich";
> &#8226;	Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts; and
> &#8226;	The tax cuts shifted even more of the income tax burden toward the rich.
> Bush Tax Cut Myths | Tax Revenue Increases | Capital Gains Tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A more recent discussion in Forbes states that in the next four years following the Bush tax cuts in 2003, treasury revenues increased by 44%.  The only thing stopping that trend was the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and no economist lays that at the feet of the Bush tax cuts or any policy that was initiated in the Bush adminisration.
> 
> Further the top 1% of earners did in fact do very well over those same four years but they saw their tax bill increase by more than 1887% over the 25-50% of earners.
> All the details can be found here:
> 
> After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased - Forbes
> 
> Which is another reason to despise a liberalism that cannot look objectively at the economic damage it does while it continues to blame somebody else, usually fallaciously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The stimulus is in that chart.
> OFF budget? You mean the War in Iraq which will end up costing us 3 trillion dollars?
> 
> Here is some wisdom that flies in the face of your lying Heritage Foundation. And it is not from a liberal.
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> Here are some other truths and charts you right winger who are NOT liberals in any way, shape or form don't want to confront.
> 
> &#8220;Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a *30-year conservative ascendancy*."
> Charles Krauthammer
> 
> What does that 30-year conservative ascendancy look like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a &#8220;tax and spend&#8221; policy, to a &#8220;borrow and spend&#8221; policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> More 30-year conservative ascendancy...
Click to expand...


I agree with the argument that the wars on poverty, hunger, booze, drugs, and terror have marked a long era of pissing taxpayer funds away to make the population feel like something is being done... all the while the only thing being done is restrictions on liberty at the cost of tens of trillions in wasted production and hundreds of millions of families torn apart.   Just imagine what we would have done with all that money if this tyrannical government had not taken it from us.  Where would we be now?


----------



## Dragonlady

Foxfyre said:


> A more recent discussion in Forbes states that in the next four years following the Bush tax cuts in 2003, treasury revenues increased by 44%.  The only thing stopping that trend was the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and no economist lays that at the feet of the Bush tax cuts or any policy that was initiated in the Bush adminisration.



Really???

John B. Taylor, Economics Professor at Stanford University says that one of the causes of the Housing Bubble was that the Federal Reserve, after 2001, artificially kept the interest rates far too low for too long.  Thomas Hoenig, one of the Directors of the Federal Reserve has also espoused this opinion.

Far Too Low for Far Too Long | Rortybomb

The Housing Bubble burst in 2006 when rates went from 1% post 9/11 to 5.5%.  These were policies that Bush put into place to ease both the dot.com crash recession, and post 9/11 and this certainly stimulated the economy, so that it appeared that the tax cuts made it all happen, but it was the cheap money, and plenty of it, all of it borrowed.

And that was ALL George W. Bush.  He even went on TV and announced those interest rates to Americans.


----------



## RKMBrown

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> A more recent discussion in Forbes states that in the next four years following the Bush tax cuts in 2003, treasury revenues increased by 44%.  The only thing stopping that trend was the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and no economist lays that at the feet of the Bush tax cuts or any policy that was initiated in the Bush adminisration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really???
> 
> John B. Taylor, Economics Professor at Stanford University says that one of the causes of the Housing Bubble was that the Federal Reserve, after 2001, artificially kept the interest rates far too low for too long.  Thomas Hoenig, one of the Directors of the Federal Reserve has also espoused this opinion.
> 
> Far Too Low for Far Too Long | Rortybomb
> 
> The Housing Bubble burst in 2006 when rates went from 1% post 9/11 to 5.5%.  These were policies that Bush put into place to ease both the dot.com crash recession, and post 9/11 and this certainly stimulated the economy, so that it appeared that the tax cuts made it all happen, but it was the cheap money, and plenty of it, all of it borrowed.
> 
> And that was ALL George W. Bush.  He even went on TV and announced those interest rates to Americans.
Click to expand...


Why make up so many lies when the facts are so easy to look up?


----------



## saveliberty

Hate liberals?  Why?  They only act superior in thought and use other people's money to help.  Know-it-all freeloaders are always fun at parties.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> A more recent discussion in Forbes states that in the next four years following the Bush tax cuts in 2003, treasury revenues increased by 44%.  The only thing stopping that trend was the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and no economist lays that at the feet of the Bush tax cuts or any policy that was initiated in the Bush adminisration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really???
> 
> John B. Taylor, Economics Professor at Stanford University says that one of the causes of the Housing Bubble was that the Federal Reserve, after 2001, artificially kept the interest rates far too low for too long.  Thomas Hoenig, one of the Directors of the Federal Reserve has also espoused this opinion.
> 
> Far Too Low for Far Too Long | Rortybomb
> 
> The Housing Bubble burst in 2006 when rates went from 1% post 9/11 to 5.5%.  These were policies that Bush put into place to ease both the dot.com crash recession, and post 9/11 and this certainly stimulated the economy, so that it appeared that the tax cuts made it all happen, but it was the cheap money, and plenty of it, all of it borrowed.
> 
> And that was ALL George W. Bush.  He even went on TV and announced those interest rates to Americans.
Click to expand...


The low interest rates did not cause the housing bubble. People being encouraged to take out mortgages they had no way to pay caused the housing bubble.  Perhaps you notice that the interest rates were not raised after the Democats took over Congress in 2007 or that the interest rates have continued to decline in five years of the Obama administration.

There are very good reasons for the government not dickering with the currency and to allow the free market to dictate interest rates.  There are very good reason to question a lot of policy of the Fed that often has NOTHING to do with any presidential edict or Congressional action.

And there are very good reasons to understand that the facts that Heritage and Forbes are presenting are real facts and honest people acknowledge that.   And to understand why a liberal, who wishes to rewrite history and blame Bush, would dismiss them out of hand.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> A more recent discussion in Forbes states that in the next four years following the Bush tax cuts in 2003, treasury revenues increased by 44%.  The only thing stopping that trend was the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and no economist lays that at the feet of the Bush tax cuts or any policy that was initiated in the Bush adminisration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really???
> 
> John B. Taylor, Economics Professor at Stanford University says that one of the causes of the Housing Bubble was that the Federal Reserve, after 2001, artificially kept the interest rates far too low for too long.  Thomas Hoenig, one of the Directors of the Federal Reserve has also espoused this opinion.
> 
> Far Too Low for Far Too Long | Rortybomb
> 
> The Housing Bubble burst in 2006 when rates went from 1% post 9/11 to 5.5%.  These were policies that Bush put into place to ease both the dot.com crash recession, and post 9/11 and this certainly stimulated the economy, so that it appeared that the tax cuts made it all happen, but it was the cheap money, and plenty of it, all of it borrowed.
> 
> And that was ALL George W. Bush.  He even went on TV and announced those interest rates to Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The low interest rates did not cause the housing bubble. People being encouraged to take out mortgages they had no way to pay caused the housing bubble.
Click to expand...


Does it really take a rocket scientist to figure out the association of lower interest rates to a higher number of risky loans?  The only way the banks had to make the same amount of profit in home mortgages was to hand out more $ in more loans, run up the cost of property etc..  Lower rates most certainly do lead to higher number of loans.  The bubble pop was due to the price of the homes exceeding the amount people could pay in a recession as the high paid jobs left the USA and the USA debt piled up for all the social programs, thus making US labor more inefficient by comparison with foreign competition.  As the price of the homes corrected, the risk based investors who could not meet their bets were exposed and went bankrupt.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really???
> 
> John B. Taylor, Economics Professor at Stanford University says that one of the causes of the Housing Bubble was that the Federal Reserve, after 2001, artificially kept the interest rates far too low for too long.  Thomas Hoenig, one of the Directors of the Federal Reserve has also espoused this opinion.
> 
> Far Too Low for Far Too Long | Rortybomb
> 
> The Housing Bubble burst in 2006 when rates went from 1% post 9/11 to 5.5%.  These were policies that Bush put into place to ease both the dot.com crash recession, and post 9/11 and this certainly stimulated the economy, so that it appeared that the tax cuts made it all happen, but it was the cheap money, and plenty of it, all of it borrowed.
> 
> And that was ALL George W. Bush.  He even went on TV and announced those interest rates to Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The low interest rates did not cause the housing bubble. People being encouraged to take out mortgages they had no way to pay caused the housing bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it really take a rocket scientist to figure out the association of lower interest rates to a higher number of risky loans?  The only way the banks had to make the same amount of profit in home mortgages was to hand out more $ in more loans, run up the cost of property etc..  Lower rates most certainly do lead to higher number of loans.  The bubble pop was due to the price of the homes exceeding the amount people could pay in a recession as the high paid jobs left the USA and the USA debt piled up for all the social programs, thus making US labor more inefficient by comparison with foreign competition.  As the price of the homes corrected, the risk based investors who could not meet their bets were exposed and went bankrupt.
Click to expand...


Low interest rates can have the effect of encouraging the irresponsible to buy more property than they could otherwise afford.  That is where the responsibility of lending institutions are supposed to come in and apply the normal standards of financing; i.e. follow the rule of thumb that people can generally afford a mortgage of about 2-1/2 times their annual income and also reasonable credit history is appropriate to consider before people receive a loan.   When that guideline is followed reasonably closely, what the interest rates are doesn't really matter, even when normal economic activity creates an occasional housing bubble. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/housing_bubble.asp 

Unfortunately during the economic prosperity of most of the Clinton/Bush years, the government encouraged neither sound borrowing or lending practices, and banking policy was relaxed to encourage more irresponsible lending and management of bundled mortgages. Hell, the government actually threatened retaliation against lending institutions that did not accommodate their vision of home ownership for every family.   And it is for that reason that the inevitable housing bubble collapse has had a catastrophic effect both in the short term and long term.  And most of that happened as a direct result of liberal government policy.

Another reason to deplore policy based on liberal concepts.


----------



## saveliberty

All you have to do is remember the birth of derivitatives.  Their sole purpose was to protect banks from high risk loans.  Like that worked.


----------



## numan

Dragonlady said:


> John B. Taylor, Economics Professor at Stanford University says that one of the causes of the Housing Bubble was that the Federal Reserve, after 2001, artificially kept the interest rates far too low for too long....
> 
> *The Housing Bubble burst in 2006 when rates went from 1% post 9/11 to 5.5%.*


_emphasis added_


			
				RKMBrown said:
			
		

> '
> Why make up so many lies when the facts are so easy to look up?
> '



Tex, you posted a chart of treasury bond rates.

However, our esteemed Dragonlady was referring to the Federal Reserve Discount Rate :







I will charitably ascribe your error to inadvertance, rather than to fundamental ignorance of the basics of economics.

However, I cannot be so charitable to the other excessively opinionated commentators on this thread. They deserve deep oprobrium for missing this basic point, leaving it to an amateur like little ol' me to correct your whopping floater !!
.


----------



## Foxfyre

Average mortgage interest rates generally follow the treasury bond rate and are generally 1.5 to 1.7% higher than the treasury bond rate.

However, for a good sense of what the mortgage interest rates have been from 1993 to present, you'll find it month by month at this location:
National Monthly Average Mortgage Rates * 2013

And for the federal discount rates, those for the last decade or so are shown here:
Historical Changes of the Target Federal Funds and Discount Rates - Federal Reserve Bank of New York


----------



## RKMBrown

numan said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> John B. Taylor, Economics Professor at Stanford University says that one of the causes of the Housing Bubble was that the Federal Reserve, after 2001, artificially kept the interest rates far too low for too long....
> 
> *The Housing Bubble burst in 2006 when rates went from 1% post 9/11 to 5.5%.*
> 
> 
> 
> _emphasis added_
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> '
> Why make up so many lies when the facts are so easy to look up?
> '
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tex, you posted a chart of treasury bond rates.
> 
> However, our esteemed Dragonlady was referring to the Federal Reserve Discount Rate :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will charitably ascribe your error to inadvertance, rather than to fundamental ignorance of the basics of economics.
> 
> However, I cannot be so charitable to the other excessively opinionated commentators on this thread. They deserve deep oprobrium for missing this basic point, leaving it to an amateur like little ol' me to correct your whopping floater !!
> .
Click to expand...


Thx for the... clarification.


----------



## Trajan

Bfgrn said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stimulus is in that chart.
> OFF budget? *You mean the War in Iraq which will end up costing us 3 trillion dollars?*
> 
> Here is some wisdom that flies in the face of your lying Heritage Foundation. And it is not from a liberal.
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
> 
> Here are some other truths and charts you right winger who are NOT liberals in any way, shape or form don't want to confront.
> 
> Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a *30-year conservative ascendancy*."
> Charles Krauthammer
> 
> What does that 30-year conservative ascendancy look like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> More 30-year conservative ascendancy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the War in Iraq which will end up costing us 3 trillion dollars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> end up? that means what exactly?
> 
> and you know, this debt issue is not a card you should be playing, I mean seriously, unless you want to here and now take obama to task for his deficit spending and adding to the debt. Well, maybe you do, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means the cost has not ended, and it will not end in our lifetime. The costs will continue as we are forced to replace equipment lost or worn out, provide lifetime medical care for the injured and other expenses that continue...The $3 Trillion War
> 
> Our debt was created by Republicans. If Obama spent nothing, the debt would continue to grow. He inherited an economy that was moribund.
> 
> Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for 12 years, and the White House for 8 years...we had ZERO job growth in the 2000's...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 2 years. What did they do?
> 
> Obama and Democrats put us on *The Extended-Baseline Scenario* trajectory. If Congress does nothing the Extended-Baseline Scenario is already in place.
> 
> IF the Bush tax cuts don't expire and the AHA is not fully implemented or repealed the *The Alternative Fiscal Scenario* is the trajectory Teapublicans will take us if they gain enough power.
> 
> the *CBO* lays it out perfectly clear...CRYSTAL.
> 
> Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBOs Long-Term Budget Scenarios
> (Percentage of gross domestic product)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chart shows 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican scenario.
> 
> 
> *The Extended-Baseline Scenario* adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.
> 
> *The Alternative Fiscal Scenario*
> The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicares payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.
> 
> "Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
> Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
Click to expand...


Uh huh, so you're introducing future possible costs as costs now?as an excuse for... anyway,  if you want to play that game, its a dead end, so how much for the costs incurred by Vietnam? 

3,403,100 (Including 514,300 Offshore) Personnel served in the Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Flight Crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China Sea Waters.)

Another 50,000 men served in Vietnam between 1960 and 1964.

*
Peak troop strength in Vietnam: 543,482 (April 30, 1969)*

so?

now that we have dispensed with that smoke screen, lets move on. 

Go back and answer my post regards schip please, I answered your argument directly in the quoted portion. 

You're packing posts, switching or adding arguments to avoid direct remarks and comments and answers, thats the way it looks, one thing at a time please. I will respond in kind. thank you in advance.


----------



## saveliberty

Regardless of which rate you're talking about, the problem with the housing bubble had nothing to due with affordability.  People are approved for loans they couldn't pay period.  That was due to changes in approval procedures backed by Barney Franks and company.  The deflection to rates is no more than deflection.


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> Regardless of which rate you're talking about, the problem with the housing bubble had nothing to due with affordability.  People are approved for loans they couldn't pay period.  That was due to changes in approval procedures backed by Barney Franks and company.  The deflection to rates is no more than deflection.



Yes.  Carter's CRA started the snowball rolling on that, but during his and Reagan's terms, both operating under the decades long-standing regulation and controls of Glass-Steagall, there was no push to make irresponsible loans.  The purpose was to make affordable loans available to more people of more limited means, but sound lending practices were in place and there were no serious problems.

It was during the Clinton Administration that provisions of Glass-Steagall were ignored or circumvented and a push began to bribe, coerce, and threaten lending institutions to make more risky loans to low income people with Freddie and Fannie standing by as the 'protection' for those loans.  And because the economy was good and unemployment relatively low, nobody sounded the alarm for some time.  By the late 1990's, Clinton himself declared Glass-Steagall irrelevent and essentially dead, and it was repealed in 1999.  So the irresonsible practices continued into the Bush administration.

To his credit, President Bush's economic advisors saw the problems developing and he petitioned Congress some 23 times to deal with the growing danger.   But Congress, didn't act, with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and a few others going before the microphones on a regular basis to assure everybody that Fannie and Freddie were just fine and there was no reason to do anything about it.

But when things get tighter, people with poor credit don't really care if they don't pay their bills, and the cumulative effect of 9/11 and Katrina pushed the defaults into the red zone.  And as more of those bad risk homes were put back on the market, housing prices began to fall and unemployment began to rise as a result.  And that led to more defaults until the whole house of cards came tumbling down.  Millions of homeowners found themselves under water, the economy crashed under the combined weight of a collapsed housing market and unemployment skyrocketed.

And we have a current administration that goes out of its way to ensure that the economy remains sick and sluggish and that no real recovery can happen.

Making risky loans to low income people is not a modern American conservative concept.  It is pure liberalism and one more reason to hold modern American liberalism in disdain.  It hurts many people and, in this case, a whole lot of people it was intended to help.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of which rate you're talking about, the problem with the housing bubble had nothing to due with affordability.  People are approved for loans they couldn't pay period.  That was due to changes in approval procedures backed by Barney Franks and company.  The deflection to rates is no more than deflection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Carter's CRA started the snowball rolling on that, but during his and Reagan's terms, both operating under the decades long-standing regulation and controls of Glass-Steagall, there was no push to make irresponsible loans.  The purpose was to make affordable loans available to more people of more limited means, but sound lending practices were in place and there were no serious problems.
> 
> It was during the Clinton Administration that provisions of Glass-Steagall were ignored or circumvented and a push began to bribe, coerce, and threaten lending institutions to make more risky loans to low income people with Freddie and Fannie standing by as the 'protection' for those loans.  And because the economy was good and unemployment relatively low, nobody sounded the alarm for some time.  By the late 1990's, Clinton himself declared Glass-Steagall irrelevent and essentially dead, and it was repealed in 1999.  So the irresonsible practices continued into the Bush administration.
> 
> To his credit, President Bush's economic advisors saw the problems developing and he petitioned Congress some 23 times to deal with the growing danger.   But Congress, didn't act, with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and a few others going before the microphones on a regular basis to assure everybody that Fannie and Freddie were just fine and there was no reason to do anything about it.
> 
> But when things get tighter, people with poor credit don't really care if they don't pay their bills, and the cumulative effect of 9/11 and Katrina pushed the defaults into the red zone.  And as more of those bad risk homes were put back on the market, housing prices began to fall and unemployment began to rise as a result.  And that led to more defaults until the whole house of cards came tumbling down.  Millions of homeowners found themselves under water, the economy crashed under the combined weight of a collapsed housing market and unemployment skyrocketed.
> 
> And we have a current administration that goes out of its way to ensure that the economy remains sick and sluggish and that no real recovery can happen.
> 
> Making risky loans to low income people is not a modern American conservative concept.  It is pure liberalism and one more reason to hold modern American liberalism in disdain.  It hurts many people and, in this case, a whole lot of people it was intended to help.
Click to expand...


America has no chance of fixing our problems when the right believes fairy tales. Your fairy tale capsulizes just how you folks have been brainwashed. And of course it fits your world view that poor people are the evil in this world.

The housing bubble and bust was not because of the CRA. It was not because lower income people bought a homestead. There wouldn't be a bust or mass rupture if that were the case. It was mostly wealthy speculators who weren't buying a homestead, they were making an investment. And when the investment went sour, they dumped that investment. They NEVER viewed it as buying a home.


----------



## Trajan

you seem incapable of managing a conversation minus demeaning language....lets try to be civil, I think we are trying to be civil...eh?


----------



## Foxfyre

Trajan said:


> you seem incapable of managing a conversation minus demeaning language....lets try to be civil, I think we are trying to be civil...eh?



For him that IS civil.  

Full of straw men and non sequitur and really faulty logic, but relatively civil.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> you seem incapable of managing a conversation minus demeaning language....lets try to be civil, I think we are trying to be civil...eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For him that IS civil.
> 
> Full of straw men and non sequitur and really faulty logic, but relatively civil.
Click to expand...


PLEASE point out the 'non sequitur and really faulty logic' part so I can dismantle your little right wing fairy tale.


----------



## Wyld Kard

I hate liberals because they are arrogant.   Liberals tend to believe theyre brilliant, compassionate, moral, enlightened, perceptive, and courageous, not because of anything theyve actually done, but just because theyre liberal.  

I also hate liberals because they see anyone who disagrees with them about anything as evil.  

I also hate liberals because they tend to spew lie after lie after lie, all from the crap that they were gullible enough to believe in the first place.  

I also hate liberals because just like the Democraps & Progressives, they tend to blame everyone else of why things don't work out, or why things are fucked up.    Whine, whine,whine.

There is nothing great or special about liberals


----------



## Dragonlady

Wildcard said:


> I hate liberals because they are arrogant.   Liberals tend to believe theyre brilliant, compassionate, moral, enlightened, perceptive, and courageous, not because of anything theyve actually done, but just because theyre liberal.
> 
> I also hate liberals because they see anyone who disagrees with them about anything as evil.
> 
> I also hate liberals because they tend to spew lie after lie after lie, all from the crap that they were gullible enough to believe in the first place.



This would be my descriptions of many of the conservatives on this board, especially spewing lie after lie as promulgated by Faux News.


----------



## dblack

Dragonlady said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate liberals because they are arrogant.   Liberals tend to believe they&#8217;re brilliant, compassionate, moral, enlightened, perceptive, and courageous, not because of anything they&#8217;ve actually done, but just because they&#8217;re liberal.
> 
> I also hate liberals because they see anyone who disagrees with them about anything as evil.
> 
> I also hate liberals because they tend to spew lie after lie after lie, all from the crap that they were gullible enough to believe in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would be my descriptions of many of the conservatives on this board, especially spewing lie after lie as promulgated by Faux News.
Click to expand...


It's a good example of the dyfunctional partisanship coming from both sides.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Hate Messages at Oberlin Revealed to be Hoax by Obama-Supporting Leftist*

August 30, 2013 By Sara Dogan 






The perpetrators of a series of alleged bias incidents at Oberlin College have been caughtand one of them is a fervent leftist who helped organize a voting drive for President Obama and is a member of a group called Ithaca White Allies Against Structural Racism. The incidents, which included posting racist, anti-Semitic and antigay messages and graffiti around the campus and harassing a female student, sparked a one-day cancellation of classes so that students could attend a teach-in on the evils of racism and homophobia.

...

Hate Messages at Oberlin Revealed to be Hoax by Obama-Supporting Leftist | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## Foxfyre

American_Jihad said:


> *Hate Messages at Oberlin Revealed to be Hoax by Obama-Supporting Leftist*
> 
> August 30, 2013 By Sara Dogan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The perpetrators of a series of alleged bias incidents at Oberlin College have been caught&#8212;and one of them is a fervent leftist who helped organize a voting drive for President Obama and is a member of a group called Ithaca White Allies Against Structural Racism. The incidents, which included posting racist, anti-Semitic and antigay messages and graffiti around the campus and harassing a female student, sparked a one-day cancellation of classes so that students could attend a teach-in on the evils of racism and homophobia.
> 
> ...
> 
> Hate Messages at Oberlin Revealed to be Hoax by Obama-Supporting Leftist | FrontPage Magazine



It is a favorite tactic of the seedier and most dishonest sector of the Left actually.  When we have had Tea Party rallies here, we meet with everybody ahead of time, admonish everybody to be polite, pleasant, obey the laws, properly dispose of any trash, and be good Americans in every regard so as not to bring criticism down on our efforts.   The very few who bring signs that we think overly antagonistic or hateful, we ask folks to put away and they always do.

But invariably, just about the time the media shows up, there will appear two or three folks who do their damndest to get offensive signs in front of the TV cameras.  Nobody, and I mean NOBODY in our group has ever seen these people before and nobody knows who they are.  As soon as the TV trucks leave, so do the people with those signs.

And of course an unscrupulous and ideologically biased media will too often feature those ugly signs in their media coverage while ignoring hundreds of non offensive signs carried by most.

The dishonesty and hypocrisy of the left is why it is so easy to dislike liberals in general.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hate Messages at Oberlin Revealed to be Hoax by Obama-Supporting Leftist*
> 
> August 30, 2013 By Sara Dogan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The perpetrators of a series of alleged bias incidents at Oberlin College have been caughtand one of them is a fervent leftist who helped organize a voting drive for President Obama and is a member of a group called Ithaca White Allies Against Structural Racism. The incidents, which included posting racist, anti-Semitic and antigay messages and graffiti around the campus and harassing a female student, sparked a one-day cancellation of classes so that students could attend a teach-in on the evils of racism and homophobia.
> 
> ...
> 
> Hate Messages at Oberlin Revealed to be Hoax by Obama-Supporting Leftist | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a favorite tactic of the seedier and most dishonest sector of the Left actually.  When we have had Tea Party rallies here, we meet with everybody ahead of time, admonish everybody to be polite, pleasant, obey the laws, properly dispose of any trash, and be good Americans in every regard so as not to bring criticism down on our efforts.   The very few who bring signs that we think overly antagonistic or hateful, we ask folks to put away and they always do.
> 
> But invariably, just about the time the media shows up, there will appear two or three folks who do their damndest to get offensive signs in front of the TV cameras.  Nobody, and I mean NOBODY in our group has ever seen these people before and nobody knows who they are.  As soon as the TV trucks leave, so do the people with those signs.
> 
> And of course an unscrupulous and ideologically biased media will too often feature those ugly signs in their media coverage while ignoring hundreds of non offensive signs carried by most.
> 
> The dishonesty and hypocrisy of the left is why it is so easy to dislike liberals in general.
Click to expand...


Ends justify the means.  Liberals.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Foxfyre said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hate Messages at Oberlin Revealed to be Hoax by Obama-Supporting Leftist*
> 
> August 30, 2013 By Sara Dogan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The perpetrators of a series of alleged bias incidents at Oberlin College have been caughtand one of them is a fervent leftist who helped organize a voting drive for President Obama and is a member of a group called Ithaca White Allies Against Structural Racism. The incidents, which included posting racist, anti-Semitic and antigay messages and graffiti around the campus and harassing a female student, sparked a one-day cancellation of classes so that students could attend a teach-in on the evils of racism and homophobia.
> 
> ...
> 
> Hate Messages at Oberlin Revealed to be Hoax by Obama-Supporting Leftist | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a favorite tactic of the seedier and most dishonest sector of the Left actually.  When we have had Tea Party rallies here, we meet with everybody ahead of time, admonish everybody to be polite, pleasant, obey the laws, properly dispose of any trash, and be good Americans in every regard so as not to bring criticism down on our efforts.   The very few who bring signs that we think overly antagonistic or hateful, we ask folks to put away and they always do.
> 
> But invariably, just about the time the media shows up, there will appear two or three folks who do their damndest to get offensive signs in front of the TV cameras.  Nobody, and I mean NOBODY in our group has ever seen these people before and nobody knows who they are.  As soon as the TV trucks leave, so do the people with those signs.
> 
> And of course an unscrupulous and ideologically biased media will too often feature those ugly signs in their media coverage while ignoring hundreds of non offensive signs carried by most.
> 
> The dishonesty and hypocrisy of the left is why it is so easy to dislike liberals in general.
Click to expand...


There are people during the Presidential election that went to Obama rallies and Romney rallies with the sole purpose of getting on camera and causing problems. If you think it's limited to one side, you are blind. It's a tactic used on both sides.


----------



## Foxfyre

Wolfsister77 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hate Messages at Oberlin Revealed to be Hoax by Obama-Supporting Leftist*
> 
> August 30, 2013 By Sara Dogan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The perpetrators of a series of alleged bias incidents at Oberlin College have been caughtand one of them is a fervent leftist who helped organize a voting drive for President Obama and is a member of a group called Ithaca White Allies Against Structural Racism. The incidents, which included posting racist, anti-Semitic and antigay messages and graffiti around the campus and harassing a female student, sparked a one-day cancellation of classes so that students could attend a teach-in on the evils of racism and homophobia.
> 
> ...
> 
> Hate Messages at Oberlin Revealed to be Hoax by Obama-Supporting Leftist | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a favorite tactic of the seedier and most dishonest sector of the Left actually.  When we have had Tea Party rallies here, we meet with everybody ahead of time, admonish everybody to be polite, pleasant, obey the laws, properly dispose of any trash, and be good Americans in every regard so as not to bring criticism down on our efforts.   The very few who bring signs that we think overly antagonistic or hateful, we ask folks to put away and they always do.
> 
> But invariably, just about the time the media shows up, there will appear two or three folks who do their damndest to get offensive signs in front of the TV cameras.  Nobody, and I mean NOBODY in our group has ever seen these people before and nobody knows who they are.  As soon as the TV trucks leave, so do the people with those signs.
> 
> And of course an unscrupulous and ideologically biased media will too often feature those ugly signs in their media coverage while ignoring hundreds of non offensive signs carried by most.
> 
> The dishonesty and hypocrisy of the left is why it is so easy to dislike liberals in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are people during the Presidential election that went to Obama rallies and Romney rallies with the sole purpose of getting on camera and causing problems. If you think it's limited to one side, you are blind. It's a tactic used on both sides.
Click to expand...


You may be right.  But I can honestly say I've been to many political rallies, campaign stops, etc. and I have NEVER witnessed intentional, planned, and organized disruption from anybody on the right.  I'm not saying it never happens, but I have not personally seen it.  I have seen it many times here from the left.


----------



## Uncensored2008

The problem is, these hoaxes are done with the complicity of the DNC media.

Anyone remember this one?






It was a hoax as well - a fully documented hoax with other signs reading "Please send my child to die in Iraq" and "Dead babies support Bush."

But the leftists use it all the time as if it were real.

This is how the little Goebbels of the left work, they stage a hoax, and the corrupt media perpetrates it as if it were real.


----------



## Foxfyre

Wildcard said:


> I hate liberals because they are arrogant.   Liberals tend to believe they&#8217;re brilliant, compassionate, moral, enlightened, perceptive, and courageous, not because of anything they&#8217;ve actually done, but just because they&#8217;re liberal.
> 
> I also hate liberals because they see anyone who disagrees with them about anything as evil.
> 
> I also hate liberals because they tend to spew lie after lie after lie, all from the crap that they were gullible enough to believe in the first place.
> 
> I also hate liberals because just like the Democraps & Progressives, they tend to blame everyone else of why things don't work out, or why things are fucked up.    Whine, whine,whine.
> 
> There is nothing great or special about liberals



I don't hate liberals.  The liberals in my family, among my friends, neighbors, and associates, including several here at USMB, are intelligent, warm, funny, caring people.  I like them very much.  I don't hate them.  I don't hate anybody actually.

But I do hate liberalism.  I hate it because I believe it weakens, erodes, attacks, and decimates basic principles and values that are good for people and substitutes blame, victimization, proactive judgment, intimidation, and coercion.  And because it does, it hurts people.  It really does see itself as more noble, more virtuous, more compassionate, more caring--just nicer people--than the rest of us and it will tolerate no argument that challenges its concepts.

That makes it very difficult to love; very easy to hate.


----------



## Dot Com

link?  you sayin' you're a t-partier as well 


Foxfyre said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hate Messages at Oberlin Revealed to be Hoax by Obama-Supporting Leftist*
> 
> August 30, 2013 By Sara Dogan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The perpetrators of a series of alleged bias incidents at Oberlin College have been caught&#8212;and one of them is a fervent leftist who helped organize a voting drive for President Obama and is a member of a group called Ithaca White Allies Against Structural Racism. The incidents, which included posting racist, anti-Semitic and antigay messages and graffiti around the campus and harassing a female student, sparked a one-day cancellation of classes so that students could attend a teach-in on the evils of racism and homophobia.
> 
> ...
> 
> Hate Messages at Oberlin Revealed to be Hoax by Obama-Supporting Leftist | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is a favorite tactic of the seedier and most dishonest sector of the Left actually.*  When_* we have had Tea Party rallies here*_, we meet with everybody ahead of time, admonish everybody to be polite, pleasant, obey the laws, properly dispose of any trash, and be good Americans in every regard so as not to bring criticism down on our efforts.   The very few who bring signs that we think overly antagonistic or hateful, we ask folks to put away and they always do.
> 
> But invariably, just about the time the media shows up, there will appear two or three folks who do their damndest to get offensive signs in front of the TV cameras.  Nobody, and I mean NOBODY in our group has ever seen these people before and nobody knows who they are.  As soon as the TV trucks leave, so do the people with those signs.
> 
> And of course an unscrupulous and ideologically biased media will too often feature those ugly signs in their media coverage while ignoring hundreds of non offensive signs carried by most.
> 
> The dishonesty and hypocrisy of the left is why it is so easy to dislike liberals in general.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dot Com

Foxfyre said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate liberals because they are arrogant.   Liberals tend to believe theyre brilliant, compassionate, moral, enlightened, perceptive, and courageous, not because of anything theyve actually done, but just because theyre liberal.
> 
> I also hate liberals because they see anyone who disagrees with them about anything as evil.
> 
> I also hate liberals because they tend to spew lie after lie after lie, all from the crap that they were gullible enough to believe in the first place.
> 
> I also hate liberals because just like the Democraps & Progressives, they tend to blame everyone else of why things don't work out, or why things are fucked up.    Whine, whine,whine.
> 
> There is nothing great or special about liberals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate liberals.  The liberals in my family, among my friends, neighbors, and associates, including several here at USMB, are intelligent, warm, funny, caring people.  I like them very much.  I don't hate them.  I don't hate anybody actually.
> 
> But I do hate liberalism.  I hate it because I believe it weakens, erodes, attacks, and decimates basic principles and values that are good for people and substitutes blame, victimization, proactive judgment, intimidation, and coercion.  And because it does, it hurts people.  It really does see itself as more noble, more virtuous, more compassionate, more caring--just nicer people--than the rest of us and it will tolerate no argument that challenges its concepts.
> 
> That makes it very difficult to love; very easy to hate.
Click to expand...


we Progressives hate Randianism even  more because its regressive


----------



## American_Jihad

Dot Com said:


> link?  you sayin' you're a t-partier as well
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hate Messages at Oberlin Revealed to be Hoax by Obama-Supporting Leftist*
> 
> August 30, 2013 By Sara Dogan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The perpetrators of a series of alleged bias incidents at Oberlin College have been caughtand one of them is a fervent leftist who helped organize a voting drive for President Obama and is a member of a group called Ithaca White Allies Against Structural Racism. The incidents, which included posting racist, anti-Semitic and antigay messages and graffiti around the campus and harassing a female student, sparked a one-day cancellation of classes so that students could attend a teach-in on the evils of racism and homophobia.
> 
> ...
> 
> Hate Messages at Oberlin Revealed to be Hoax by Obama-Supporting Leftist | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is a favorite tactic of the seedier and most dishonest sector of the Left actually.*  When_* we have had Tea Party rallies here*_, we meet with everybody ahead of time, admonish everybody to be polite, pleasant, obey the laws, properly dispose of any trash, and be good Americans in every regard so as not to bring criticism down on our efforts.   The very few who bring signs that we think overly antagonistic or hateful, we ask folks to put away and they always do.
> 
> But invariably, just about the time the media shows up, there will appear two or three folks who do their damndest to get offensive signs in front of the TV cameras.  Nobody, and I mean NOBODY in our group has ever seen these people before and nobody knows who they are.  As soon as the TV trucks leave, so do the people with those signs.
> 
> And of course an unscrupulous and ideologically biased media will too often feature those ugly signs in their media coverage while ignoring hundreds of non offensive signs carried by most.
> 
> The dishonesty and hypocrisy of the left is why it is so easy to dislike liberals in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Dot Con, link to what, my article has a url or do you want a link to the salunsky rules...


----------



## jon_berzerk

i suppose because of crap like this 

USPS to Destroy &#8216;Just Move&#8217; Stamp Series Over Safety Concerns

With the Just Move! stamp issuance the U.S. Postal Service hoped to raise awareness about the importance of physical activity in achieving a healthy lifestyle. However, according to Linns Stamp News, the USPS will be destroying the entire press run after receiving concerns from the President&#8217;s Council on Fitness, Sports & Nutrition over alleged &#8220;unsafe&#8221; acts depicted on three of the stamps (cannonball dive, skateboarding without kneepads and a headstand without a helmet). (There&#8217;s also a batter without a batting helmet, a girl balancing on a slippery rock, and a soccer player without kneepads or shin pads.)


USPS to Destroy ?Just Move? Stamp Series Over Safety Concerns | Postal Blog


----------



## Pogo

jon_berzerk said:


> i suppose because of crap like this
> 
> USPS to Destroy Just Move Stamp Series Over Safety Concerns
> 
> With the Just Move! stamp issuance the U.S. Postal Service hoped to raise awareness about the importance of physical activity in achieving a healthy lifestyle. However, according to Linns Stamp News, the USPS will be destroying the entire press run after receiving concerns from the Presidents Council on Fitness, Sports & Nutrition over alleged unsafe acts depicted on three of the stamps (cannonball dive, skateboarding without kneepads and a headstand without a helmet). (Theres also a batter without a batting helmet, a girl balancing on a slippery rock, and a soccer player without kneepads or shin pads.)
> 
> 
> USPS to Destroy ?Just Move? Stamp Series Over Safety Concerns | Postal Blog




What in the Wide World of Blue Fuck does any of that have to do with Liberalism?


----------



## jon_berzerk

because the council is chuck full of em

the President's Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition (Council).
The Council shall be composed of up to 25 members appointed by the President.

Executive Order - President's Council on Fitness, Sports & Nutrition


----------



## Wyld Kard

Dragonlady said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate liberals because they are arrogant.   Liberals tend to believe theyre brilliant, compassionate, moral, enlightened, perceptive, and courageous, not because of anything theyve actually done, but just because theyre liberal.
> 
> I also hate liberals because they see anyone who disagrees with them about anything as evil.
> 
> I also hate liberals because they tend to spew lie after lie after lie, all from the crap that they were gullible enough to believe in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would be my descriptions of many of the conservatives on this board, especially spewing lie after lie as promulgated by Faux News.
Click to expand...


Since you didn't dispute it, you admit that liberals, just like the Democraps & Progressives, tend to blame everyone else of why things don't work out, or why things are fucked up.  They will always blame everyone else for their failures.  

Whine, whine, whine.


----------



## Pogo

Wildcard said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate liberals because they are arrogant.   Liberals tend to believe theyre brilliant, compassionate, moral, enlightened, perceptive, and courageous, not because of anything theyve actually done, but just because theyre liberal.
> 
> I also hate liberals because they see anyone who disagrees with them about anything as evil.
> 
> I also hate liberals because they tend to spew lie after lie after lie, all from the crap that they were gullible enough to believe in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would be my descriptions of many of the conservatives on this board, especially spewing lie after lie as promulgated by Faux News.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you didn't dispute it, you admit that liberals, just like the Democraps & Progressives, tend to blame everyone else of why things don't work out, or why things are fucked up.  They will always blame everyone else for their failures.
> 
> Whine, whine, whine.
Click to expand...


Every blanket statement about "all X people do Y" is the statement of an asshole.
Except this one.


----------



## RKMBrown

Wildcard said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate liberals because they are arrogant.   Liberals tend to believe they&#8217;re brilliant, compassionate, moral, enlightened, perceptive, and courageous, not because of anything they&#8217;ve actually done, but just because they&#8217;re liberal.
> 
> I also hate liberals because they see anyone who disagrees with them about anything as evil.
> 
> I also hate liberals because they tend to spew lie after lie after lie, all from the crap that they were gullible enough to believe in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would be my descriptions of many of the conservatives on this board, especially spewing lie after lie as promulgated by Faux News.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you didn't dispute it, you admit that liberals, just like the Democraps & Progressives, tend to blame everyone else of why things don't work out, or why things are fucked up.  They will always blame everyone else for their failures.
> 
> Whine, whine, whine.
Click to expand...


Why should they take the blame for anything?  We are responsible for everything our wards do, we are their duly elected wet nurse.  Welcome to the tyranny of a democracy gone awry, the rowers are now outnumbered, all the checks on tyranny gone.


----------



## Foxfyre

jon_berzerk said:


> because the council is chuck full of em
> 
> the President's Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition (Council).
> The Council shall be composed of up to 25 members appointed by the President.
> 
> Executive Order - President's Council on Fitness, Sports & Nutrition



I would agree that costing the taxpayer tens of thousands if not millions of dollars because a postage stamp isn't PC is NOT a conservative concept but smacks of pure liberal nonsense.  The conservative might agree that we would be better served by sports figures wearing reasonable protecive gear, but the conservative trusts the individual to have the common sense not to read postage stamps for instructions on what to do.

It's just like conservatives trusting the people to choose what size of soft drink they want and that not being the prerogative of government to dictate to them.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> because the council is chuck full of em
> 
> the President's Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition (Council).
> The Council shall be composed of up to 25 members appointed by the President.
> 
> Executive Order - President's Council on Fitness, Sports & Nutrition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that costing the taxpayer tens of thousands if not millions of dollars because a postage stamp isn't PC is NOT a conservative concept but smacks of pure liberal nonsense.  The conservative might agree that we would be better served by sports figures wearing reasonable protecive gear, but the conservative trusts the individual to have the common sense not to read postage stamps for instructions on what to do.
> 
> It's just like conservatives trusting the people to choose what size of soft drink they want and that not being the prerogative of government to dictate to them.
Click to expand...


Again, choosing this or that postage stamp has zero to do with either "liberal" or "conservative" principles.  And I fail to see how not printing a certain postage stamp is going to cost the taxpayers "millions".

This point is baseless.  It would appear Jon_Berzerk is under the impression that liberalism is a _social _movement, while conservatism is political.  He wants to compare two different things and then complain that his apples don't taste like oranges.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> because the council is chuck full of em
> 
> the President's Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition (Council).
> The Council shall be composed of up to 25 members appointed by the President.
> 
> Executive Order - President's Council on Fitness, Sports & Nutrition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that costing the taxpayer tens of thousands if not millions of dollars because a postage stamp isn't PC is NOT a conservative concept but smacks of pure liberal nonsense.  The conservative might agree that we would be better served by sports figures wearing reasonable protecive gear, but the conservative trusts the individual to have the common sense not to read postage stamps for instructions on what to do.
> 
> It's just like conservatives trusting the people to choose what size of soft drink they want and that not being the prerogative of government to dictate to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, choosing this or that postage stamp has zero to do with either "liberal" or "conservative" principles.  And I fail to see how not printing a certain postage stamp is going to cost the taxpayers "millions".
> 
> This point is baseless.  It would appear Jon_Berzerk is under the impression that liberalism is a _social _movement, while conservatism is political.  He wants to compare two different things and then complain that his apples don't taste like oranges.
Click to expand...


The postage stamps had already been designed and printed Pogo.  And they will be trashed  because of the idiotic concept that a few of them are politically incorrect and therefore will corrupt the poor innocent helpless people out there.  That is purely a liberal concept--no conservative would lack common sense to that degree.

Here are the stamps that were to be released:






And because they are printed as a group, ALL of them will be trashed.  And if you think that doesn't cost a huge amount of money not even counting the mega thousands or more that are no doubt being paid to Obama's very large sports and fitness council. . . .  And you want to make a bet on how many conservatives he appointed to that?


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that costing the taxpayer tens of thousands if not millions of dollars because a postage stamp isn't PC is NOT a conservative concept but smacks of pure liberal nonsense.  The conservative might agree that we would be better served by sports figures wearing reasonable protecive gear, but the conservative trusts the individual to have the common sense not to read postage stamps for instructions on what to do.
> 
> It's just like conservatives trusting the people to choose what size of soft drink they want and that not being the prerogative of government to dictate to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, choosing this or that postage stamp has zero to do with either "liberal" or "conservative" principles.  And I fail to see how not printing a certain postage stamp is going to cost the taxpayers "millions".
> 
> This point is baseless.  It would appear Jon_Berzerk is under the impression that liberalism is a _social _movement, while conservatism is political.  He wants to compare two different things and then complain that his apples don't taste like oranges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The postage stamps had already been designed and printed Pogo.  And they will be trashed  because of the idiotic concept that a few of them are politically incorrect and therefore will corrupt the poor innocent helpless people out there.  That is purely a liberal concept--no conservative would lack common sense to that degree.
> 
> Here are the stamps that were to be released:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And because they are printed as a group, ALL of them will be trashed.  And if you think that doesn't cost a huge amount of money. . . . .
Click to expand...


What you have there is bad management.  Still has nothing to do with "liberalism".


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, choosing this or that postage stamp has zero to do with either "liberal" or "conservative" principles.  And I fail to see how not printing a certain postage stamp is going to cost the taxpayers "millions".
> 
> This point is baseless.  It would appear Jon_Berzerk is under the impression that liberalism is a _social _movement, while conservatism is political.  He wants to compare two different things and then complain that his apples don't taste like oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The postage stamps had already been designed and printed Pogo.  And they will be trashed  because of the idiotic concept that a few of them are politically incorrect and therefore will corrupt the poor innocent helpless people out there.  That is purely a liberal concept--no conservative would lack common sense to that degree.
> 
> Here are the stamps that were to be released:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And because they are printed as a group, ALL of them will be trashed.  And if you think that doesn't cost a huge amount of money. . . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you have there is bad management.  Still has nothing to do with "liberalism".
Click to expand...


In this case it was the liberal notion that government cannot take the risk that somebody might actually read postage stamps for instructions on fitness that led to a bad management decision.  It has EVERYTHING to do with liberalism.   No conservative would have deemed the people that stupid and that much in need of of government hovering.  No conservative would have made that bad management decision in this case.  It was a bunch of liberal pointy heads who ordered the post office to trash those stamps.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The postage stamps had already been designed and printed Pogo.  And they will be trashed  because of the idiotic concept that a few of them are politically incorrect and therefore will corrupt the poor innocent helpless people out there.  That is purely a liberal concept--no conservative would lack common sense to that degree.
> 
> Here are the stamps that were to be released:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And because they are printed as a group, ALL of them will be trashed.  And if you think that doesn't cost a huge amount of money. . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have there is bad management.  Still has nothing to do with "liberalism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this case it was the liberal notion that government cannot take the risk that somebody might actually read postage stamps for instructions on fitness that led to a bad management decision.  It has EVERYTHING to do with liberalism.   No conservative would have deemed the people that stupid and that much in need of of government hovering.  No conservative would have made that bad management decision in this case.
Click to expand...


That's not a liberal tenet.

Some of y'all are _still _bent on conflating liberalism with leftism, and I really don't want to hear any more of this "classical liberalism" canard y'all keep trying to use as a pretext for this conflation.  Jonah Goldberg is a discredited hack; get over it.  _Liberal _isn't left or right.  It's antagonistic to the fringes of both.

The *left *(as a philosophy) wants to control how big a soda you can buy and how many minorities a business has to hire.

The *right *(as a philosophy) wants to control what people do in their bedroom and whether a schoolteacher who once posed nude can keep her job.

The _*Liberal *_doesn't want to control anything except what the State must to keep order.

Again, what you have here is bad management.  Those stamps look like a stupid idea anyway.  But they're not political.


----------



## Foxfyre

Okay Pogo, I'm not going to get into your corruption of common usage of the terms again.  You know damn well that the dictionary or classic definitions don't apply in this case.  So I'll acknoweldge your post as argumentative but won't get into that yet again and thereby derail the thread.  Thanks for understanding.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Okay Pogo, I'm not going to get into your corruption of common usage of the terms again.  You know damn well that the dictionary or classic definitions don't apply in this case.  So I'll acknoweldge your post as argumentative but won't get into that yet again and thereby derail the thread.  Thanks for understanding.



No, I know no such thing.  Far as I'm concerned the derailment came in with that deliberate obfuscation, and the echo chamber keeps stoking it for fear it will burn itself out (and rightly so).

But I do know this: as long as nobody here can *define *what they're talking about with this new-and-disproved misdefinition, there's no point being made in this endless and pointless bash-thread.  It amounts to a gaggle of whiners going "That indistinct group over there _(that we can't define but we know who they are)_ are bad people".  Not impressive on any level.


----------



## Billo_Really

Foxfyre said:


> Okay Pogo, I'm not going to get into your corruption of common usage of the terms again.  You know damn well that the dictionary or classic definitions don't apply in this case.  So I'll acknoweldge your post as argumentative but won't get into that yet again and thereby derail the thread.  Thanks for understanding.


What's up with all this *MaBelle *pink shit?

She is kinda cute with the sunglasses.

I think I wanna fuck her?


----------



## Foxfyre

We've defined it ad nauseum, Pogo.  So I won't bother again.  But here's a start for you:

Edit (to fix link)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> We've defined it ad nauseum, Pogo.  So I won't bother again.  But here's a start for you:
> 
> Edit (to fix link)
> 
> Modern liberalism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Wrong page Foxy.  The definition of the topic here, from the same site, is here.

Again that is, if we want a finite and specific definition.  If OTOH what we want is a vague wispy idea of "them"ness, well have fun in the echo chamber because that's all it is.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've defined it ad nauseum, Pogo.  So I won't bother again.  But here's a start for you:
> 
> Edit (to fix link)
> 
> Modern liberalism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong page Foxy.  The definition of the topic here, from the same site, is here.
> 
> Again that is, if we want a finite and specific definition.  If OTOH what we want is a vague wispy idea of "them"ness, well have fun in the echo chamber because that's all it is.
Click to expand...


I gave you the proper link.  And I won't comment further on it out of respect for the integrity of the thread and because of my experience that I can give you a dozen authorities who will concur that modern American social liberalism bears no resemblance to classical liberalism, and you have refused to even read the commentaries, much less acknowledge them.  And I really try to resist in engaging in exercises of futility.  .


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've defined it ad nauseum, Pogo.  So I won't bother again.  But here's a start for you:
> 
> Edit (to fix link)
> 
> Modern liberalism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong page Foxy.  The definition of the topic here, from the same site, is here.
> 
> Again that is, if we want a finite and specific definition.  If OTOH what we want is a vague wispy idea of "them"ness, well have fun in the echo chamber because that's all it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you the proper link.  And I won't comment further on it out of respect for the integrity of the thread and because of my experience that I can give you a dozen authorities who will concur that modern American social liberalism bears no resemblance to classical liberalism, and you have refused to even read the commentaries, much less acknowledge them.  And I really try to resist in engaging in exercises of futility.  .
Click to expand...


I figure, if the thread meant "social liberalism" it would have said that. And again, the fact that a few leftists may call themselves Liberals when it suits a purpose doesn't make them poster children, any more than David Duke calling himself conservative does.

As I've said before I am a linguistic archconservative.  I don't cotton to you "liberal" dictionaristas 

We can re-agree to disagree; all I know is I'm the one with the working definition.  

And let's toss this in: it occurs to me that "liberalism", however we define it, is _secondary _in the question of this thread.  The _primary _question is "why do people *hate*?".
That's a legitimate query, it's what brought me here originally, and to the best of my knowledge hasn't been touched.

In that sense the question posed by the thread really isn't about liberalism or about political philosophies.  It's about the tenor of discourse in general, on this board and in the greater public.  Just a scan back of the last few pages in this thread alone gives these adjectives attributed to alleged "liberals":

"arrogant", "spew lie after lie", "gullible", "blame everyone else", "ends justify the means", "know it all freeloaders" and of course "libtards".  Perhaps Brownie summed it up in a convenient bite-size morsel: "Liberalism is all about being stupid, ignorant, lazy, and good for nothing anchors on society. The only work a liberal does is steal from people and whine and complain about their shitty little lives". -- and that's just this thread; we could fill the page with the vitriol from countless other threads.

What do we notice about _all_ of these terms?  Not just that they're blanket statements, that's fallacious enough, but that they're *all *personal traits and none are political.  This isn't political analysis.  It's demonization pure and simple.  It's the Eliminationist mindset that seeks not to understand but to destroy.  And the question of this thread as originally laid out was why this dynamic is.


----------



## Wyld Kard

Another reason that I hate liberals is that they tend to play the "race card" alot.


----------



## Hoffstra

In my experience, the people who hate Liberals love their Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, 40 hour work week, clean air, clean water, public transportation, clean streets, fixed up highways & bridges, child labor laws, public schools, meat inspected, vegetables & fruit inspected, etc etc..

which means they hate Liberals but love what Liberals have accompished.

game...set...match.


----------



## Wyld Kard

*25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals*
John Hawkins | May 11, 2013   

Is every liberal an immoral, nasty tempered, habitual liar who accuses people of racism for fun and trashes his own country because he thinks it makes him look sophisticated? Of course, not! On the other hand, is that a fairly accurate description of most liberals in politics? Yes, it is. Most of them aren't evil per se, but as Margaret Thatcher said,

"Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag." 

Liberals view themselves as good people because they're liberals. People who are outside of that ugly little bit of circular reasoning don't have such a benign view of their horrible behavior. So, what reason could you have to dislike liberals?

*1)* Only liberals would be cruel enough to pick on kids running lemonade stands with a permit, children putting on Christmas plays at school and the Boy Scouts.

*2)* Because the closest thing to Sodom and Gomorrah in the modern world is San Francisco and Berkeley. 

*3) *Whether you're talking about cop killers, terrorists, radical Islamists or dictators, all you have to do is say, "I hate America," and liberals start to sympathize with you.

*4)* Liberals are actually bothered by people who do love America. On the rare occasion when you do see a liberal waving a flag, look for a camera.

*5)* The same people who voted Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama into office think they're smarter than tradition, the Founding Fathers and God Himself.

*6)* Liberals might not want to admit it, but the world would have been a better place if Mary Jo Kopechne had crawled up out of that car instead of Ted Kennedy.

*7)* Only an ass could like Bill Maher, Alan Grayson or Sheila Jackson Lee.

*8)* Liberals believe in taking money from people who earn it, handing it out as bribes in order to get more power and then using that power to hurt the people that are giving them money. 

*9)* The same liberal who'll laugh at a rape joke about Sarah Palin and then attack Michele Bachmann's family will then turn around and accuse someone else of being sexist for respectfully noting that a woman is attractive.

*10)* Liberals view hooking people on welfare and food stamps as a core part of their election strategy, which is terrible for the country, shows they have no character and requires more than a little hatred for poor people.

*11)* The dumbest, most close-minded and mean spirited people in all of politics are inevitably liberals who are convinced they're brilliant, open-minded and compassionate because they call themselves liberals.

*12)* A policy that makes liberals feel superior and caring that doesn't work and wastes billions is considered a smashing success because they genuinely *DON'T CARE WHETHER THEIR POLICIES ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE OR NOT. *

*13)* The same liberal who pretends to be angry about Susan Smith or Casey Anthony will then turn around and give the thumbs up to women who do the same thing to their children via abortion.

*14)* There's a reason why the average homeschooled kid gets a better education than he would in a public school run by liberals. It's because the kid's parents are interested in educating him while his liberal teachers view public schools as just another way to indoctrinate children.

*15)* Noam Chomsky is an America-hating creep and to think of him as some kind of genius, you have to both despise our country enough to suspend your disbelief and be largely ignorant of world history.

*16)* Anyone whose first reaction after a terrorist attack is, "Why do they hate us?" is just an intolerable douche.

*17)* Liberals talk up Hillary Clinton as the most prominent and important female politician in America; yet her entire political career is based on the fact that she married Bill Clinton. That's actually kind of pathetic.

*18)* Liberals have been big supporters of slavery, Indian massacres, the KKK, eugenics, fascism, communism and Jim Crow laws. Then, down the road, after liberals finally join everyone else, they try to claim that conservatives still support all the practices that we fought liberals on from the beginning. 

*19)* Liberals think black Americans are inferior to whites, which is why the worst, most crime-ridden places to live in America are inevitably run by liberals. That's acceptable to liberals because they don't think black Americans deserve any better.

*20)* A liberal is more likely to support a man who murders a cop like Mumia Abu Jamal than cops who want to regularly patrol a bad neighborhood in force to keep the criminals from terrorizing the innocent people who live there.

*21)* The average middle aged Tea Partier who's going to rallies, talking about the Constitution and calling for reduced spending cares more about "the children" than 99% of the liberals out there who demand that we support one stupid program after the other "for the children."

*22)* You have to be a horrible human being to be okay with terrorists like Bill Ayers teaching kids at a college. 

*23)* Because liberals are unable to ever admit they're wrong, they systematically ruin and destroy everything they become involved with and then either point the finger elsewhere or demand even more government involvement to fix the problems they created.

*24)* Detroit  and, yes, liberals did that.

*25)* Even "liberal Christians" are generally supportive of other liberals who attack Christianity, which is why "liberal Christians" is in quotes.


25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals - John Hawkins - Page full


----------



## Hoffstra

next time you meet someone who hates Liberals, ask them if they plan on giving back to the govt. every dollar of Social Security they didn't personally put into it + interest.

cause yeah, we get back from SS much more than we put in + interest.


----------



## dblack

Hoffstra said:


> next time you meet someone who hates Liberals, ask them if they plan on giving back to the govt. every dollar of Social Security they didn't personally put into it + interest.
> 
> cause yeah, we get back from SS much more than we put in + interest.



Some do. Some don't. I suspect most conservatives and liberals would agree to opt out, if that's what you're suggesting.


----------



## American_Jihad

Hoffstra said:


> next time you meet someone who hates Liberals, ask them if they plan on giving back to the govt. every dollar of Social Security they didn't personally put into it + interest.
> 
> *cause yeah, we get back from SS much more than we put in + interest.*



That's the problem...

The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program


...


----------



## Pogo

Wildcard said:


> *25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals*
> John Hawkins | May 11, 2013
> 
> Is every liberal an immoral, nasty tempered, habitual liar who accuses people of racism for fun and trashes his own country because he thinks it makes him look sophisticated? Of course, not! On the other hand, is that a fairly accurate description of most liberals in politics? Yes, it is. Most of them aren't evil per se, but as Margaret Thatcher said,
> 
> "Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag."
> 
> Liberals view themselves as good people because they're liberals. People who are outside of that ugly little bit of circular reasoning don't have such a benign view of their horrible behavior. So, what reason could you have to dislike liberals?
> 
> *1)* Only liberals would be cruel enough to pick on kids running lemonade stands with a permit, children putting on Christmas plays at school and the Boy Scouts.
> 
> *2)* Because the closest thing to Sodom and Gomorrah in the modern world is San Francisco and Berkeley.
> 
> *3) *Whether you're talking about cop killers, terrorists, radical Islamists or dictators, all you have to do is say, "I hate America," and liberals start to sympathize with you.
> 
> *4)* Liberals are actually bothered by people who do love America. On the rare occasion when you do see a liberal waving a flag, look for a camera.
> 
> *5)* The same people who voted Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama into office think they're smarter than tradition, the Founding Fathers and God Himself.
> 
> *6)* Liberals might not want to admit it, but the world would have been a better place if Mary Jo Kopechne had crawled up out of that car instead of Ted Kennedy.
> 
> *7)* Only an ass could like Bill Maher, Alan Grayson or Sheila Jackson Lee.
> 
> *8)* Liberals believe in taking money from people who earn it, handing it out as bribes in order to get more power and then using that power to hurt the people that are giving them money.
> 
> *9)* The same liberal who'll laugh at a rape joke about Sarah Palin and then attack Michele Bachmann's family will then turn around and accuse someone else of being sexist for respectfully noting that a woman is attractive.
> 
> *10)* Liberals view hooking people on welfare and food stamps as a core part of their election strategy, which is terrible for the country, shows they have no character and requires more than a little hatred for poor people.
> 
> *11)* The dumbest, most close-minded and mean spirited people in all of politics are inevitably liberals who are convinced they're brilliant, open-minded and compassionate because they call themselves liberals.
> 
> *12)* A policy that makes liberals feel superior and caring that doesn't work and wastes billions is considered a smashing success because they genuinely *DON'T CARE WHETHER THEIR POLICIES ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE OR NOT. *
> 
> *13)* The same liberal who pretends to be angry about Susan Smith or Casey Anthony will then turn around and give the thumbs up to women who do the same thing to their children via abortion.
> 
> *14)* There's a reason why the average homeschooled kid gets a better education than he would in a public school run by liberals. It's because the kid's parents are interested in educating him while his liberal teachers view public schools as just another way to indoctrinate children.
> 
> *15)* Noam Chomsky is an America-hating creep and to think of him as some kind of genius, you have to both despise our country enough to suspend your disbelief and be largely ignorant of world history.
> 
> *16)* Anyone whose first reaction after a terrorist attack is, "Why do they hate us?" is just an intolerable douche.
> 
> *17)* Liberals talk up Hillary Clinton as the most prominent and important female politician in America; yet her entire political career is based on the fact that she married Bill Clinton. That's actually kind of pathetic.
> 
> *18)* Liberals have been big supporters of slavery, Indian massacres, the KKK, eugenics, fascism, communism and Jim Crow laws. Then, down the road, after liberals finally join everyone else, they try to claim that conservatives still support all the practices that we fought liberals on from the beginning.
> 
> *19)* Liberals think black Americans are inferior to whites, which is why the worst, most crime-ridden places to live in America are inevitably run by liberals. That's acceptable to liberals because they don't think black Americans deserve any better.
> 
> *20)* A liberal is more likely to support a man who murders a cop like Mumia Abu Jamal than cops who want to regularly patrol a bad neighborhood in force to keep the criminals from terrorizing the innocent people who live there.
> 
> *21)* The average middle aged Tea Partier who's going to rallies, talking about the Constitution and calling for reduced spending cares more about "the children" than 99% of the liberals out there who demand that we support one stupid program after the other "for the children."
> 
> *22)* You have to be a horrible human being to be okay with terrorists like Bill Ayers teaching kids at a college.
> 
> *23)* Because liberals are unable to ever admit they're wrong, they systematically ruin and destroy everything they become involved with and then either point the finger elsewhere or demand even more government involvement to fix the problems they created.
> 
> *24)* Detroit  and, yes, liberals did that.
> 
> *25)* Even "liberal Christians" are generally supportive of other liberals who attack Christianity, which is why "liberal Christians" is in quotes.
> 
> 
> 25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals - John Hawkins - Page full



Thanks for profusely illustrating post 2643.


----------



## Bfgrn

Wildcard said:


> *25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals*
> John Hawkins | May 11, 2013
> 
> Is every liberal an immoral, nasty tempered, habitual liar who accuses people of racism for fun and trashes his own country because he thinks it makes him look sophisticated? Of course, not! On the other hand, is that a fairly accurate description of most liberals in politics? Yes, it is. Most of them aren't evil per se, but as Margaret Thatcher said,
> 
> "Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag."
> 
> Liberals view themselves as good people because they're liberals. People who are outside of that ugly little bit of circular reasoning don't have such a benign view of their horrible behavior. So, what reason could you have to dislike liberals?
> 
> *1)* Only liberals would be cruel enough to pick on kids running lemonade stands with a permit, children putting on Christmas plays at school and the Boy Scouts.
> 
> *2)* Because the closest thing to Sodom and Gomorrah in the modern world is San Francisco and Berkeley.
> 
> *3) *Whether you're talking about cop killers, terrorists, radical Islamists or dictators, all you have to do is say, "I hate America," and liberals start to sympathize with you.
> 
> *4)* Liberals are actually bothered by people who do love America. On the rare occasion when you do see a liberal waving a flag, look for a camera.
> 
> *5)* The same people who voted Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama into office think they're smarter than tradition, the Founding Fathers and God Himself.
> 
> *6)* Liberals might not want to admit it, but the world would have been a better place if Mary Jo Kopechne had crawled up out of that car instead of Ted Kennedy.
> 
> *7)* Only an ass could like Bill Maher, Alan Grayson or Sheila Jackson Lee.
> 
> *8)* Liberals believe in taking money from people who earn it, handing it out as bribes in order to get more power and then using that power to hurt the people that are giving them money.
> 
> *9)* The same liberal who'll laugh at a rape joke about Sarah Palin and then attack Michele Bachmann's family will then turn around and accuse someone else of being sexist for respectfully noting that a woman is attractive.
> 
> *10)* Liberals view hooking people on welfare and food stamps as a core part of their election strategy, which is terrible for the country, shows they have no character and requires more than a little hatred for poor people.
> 
> *11)* The dumbest, most close-minded and mean spirited people in all of politics are inevitably liberals who are convinced they're brilliant, open-minded and compassionate because they call themselves liberals.
> 
> *12)* A policy that makes liberals feel superior and caring that doesn't work and wastes billions is considered a smashing success because they genuinely *DON'T CARE WHETHER THEIR POLICIES ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE OR NOT. *
> 
> *13)* The same liberal who pretends to be angry about Susan Smith or Casey Anthony will then turn around and give the thumbs up to women who do the same thing to their children via abortion.
> 
> *14)* There's a reason why the average homeschooled kid gets a better education than he would in a public school run by liberals. It's because the kid's parents are interested in educating him while his liberal teachers view public schools as just another way to indoctrinate children.
> 
> *15)* Noam Chomsky is an America-hating creep and to think of him as some kind of genius, you have to both despise our country enough to suspend your disbelief and be largely ignorant of world history.
> 
> *16)* Anyone whose first reaction after a terrorist attack is, "Why do they hate us?" is just an intolerable douche.
> 
> *17)* Liberals talk up Hillary Clinton as the most prominent and important female politician in America; yet her entire political career is based on the fact that she married Bill Clinton. That's actually kind of pathetic.
> 
> *18)* Liberals have been big supporters of slavery, Indian massacres, the KKK, eugenics, fascism, communism and Jim Crow laws. Then, down the road, after liberals finally join everyone else, they try to claim that conservatives still support all the practices that we fought liberals on from the beginning.
> 
> *19)* Liberals think black Americans are inferior to whites, which is why the worst, most crime-ridden places to live in America are inevitably run by liberals. That's acceptable to liberals because they don't think black Americans deserve any better.
> 
> *20)* A liberal is more likely to support a man who murders a cop like Mumia Abu Jamal than cops who want to regularly patrol a bad neighborhood in force to keep the criminals from terrorizing the innocent people who live there.
> 
> *21)* The average middle aged Tea Partier who's going to rallies, talking about the Constitution and calling for reduced spending cares more about "the children" than 99% of the liberals out there who demand that we support one stupid program after the other "for the children."
> 
> *22)* You have to be a horrible human being to be okay with terrorists like Bill Ayers teaching kids at a college.
> 
> *23)* Because liberals are unable to ever admit they're wrong, they systematically ruin and destroy everything they become involved with and then either point the finger elsewhere or demand even more government involvement to fix the problems they created.
> 
> *24)* Detroit  and, yes, liberals did that.
> 
> *25)* Even "liberal Christians" are generally supportive of other liberals who attack Christianity, which is why "liberal Christians" is in quotes.
> 
> 
> 25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals - John Hawkins - Page full



Pure hate disguised as knowledge. It is really sad that you right wingers believe this shit.

The history of conservatism is an abyss with ZERO accomplishments. Name ONE thing conservatives have ever done for anyone other than the hierarchy they worship? It is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone (1809  1898)


----------



## Wolfsister77

Bfgrn said:


> Pure hate disguised as knowledge. It is really sad that you right wingers believe this shit.
> 
> The history of conservatism is an abyss with ZERO accomplishments. Name ONE thing conservatives have ever done for anyone other than the hierarchy they worship? It is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone (1809 &#8211; 1898)



What I see in that list is nothing but a bunch of nasty personal attacks and a bunch of lies that show more about the person using it for anything at all, then it does about Liberals.


----------



## Immanuel

Wolfsister77 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pure hate disguised as knowledge. It is really sad that you right wingers believe this shit.
> 
> The history of conservatism is an abyss with ZERO accomplishments. Name ONE thing conservatives have ever done for anyone other than the hierarchy they worship? It is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone (1809  1898)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I see in that list is nothing but a bunch of nasty personal attacks and a bunch of lies that show more about the person using it for anything at all, then it does about Liberals.
Click to expand...


The idea that bfgrn bitches about someone else's hate is absolutely hilarious and hypocritical.

Immie


----------



## Foxfyre

Immanuel said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pure hate disguised as knowledge. It is really sad that you right wingers believe this shit.
> 
> The history of conservatism is an abyss with ZERO accomplishments. Name ONE thing conservatives have ever done for anyone other than the hierarchy they worship? It is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone (1809  1898)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I see in that list is nothing but a bunch of nasty personal attacks and a bunch of lies that show more about the person using it for anything at all, then it does about Liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that bfgrn bitches about someone else's hate is absolutely hilarious and hypocritical.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


LOL, I was just thinking the same thing.      Actually neither side of the ideological spectrum does their group good service with insults and flaming rhetoric.  Or by rewriting history or by denying the shortcomings of those people or philosophies that we admire.

Overall, liberalism, as it is usually defined in modern day America, has proved to be a failed system and to have produced more negatives than positives everywhere it has been tried.  But to say that some good policy has never been produced in a 'liberal' administration is intellectually dishonest.

Conservatism, as it is usually defined in modern day America and as it was practiced by our Founding Fathers, has much more to commend it.  But because policy and flawed objectives have been included in administrations we generally deem 'conservative', the liberals point to that and refuse to acknowledge any positives.  And that too is intellectually dishonest.

I wonder if I will live long enough to find a group of people who can focus on concepts instead of personalities, and who can discuss principles instead of throwing insults at those with whom they disagree?


----------



## RKMBrown

Hoffstra said:


> next time you meet someone who hates Liberals, ask them if they plan on giving back to the govt. every dollar of Social Security they didn't personally put into it + interest.
> 
> cause yeah, we get back from SS much more than we put in + interest.



What's this we shit?  You pull that out of your ass?

I don't know anyone other than people who don't work that will get more out than they put in.

It is designed to screw the people in the middle class income bracket the most for the benefit of the low income bracket.


----------



## HUGGY

*Why do people hate Liberals?*

Are mouth breathers really people?


----------



## Wyld Kard

Bfgrn said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> *25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals*
> John Hawkins | May 11, 2013
> 
> Is every liberal an immoral, nasty tempered, habitual liar who accuses people of racism for fun and trashes his own country because he thinks it makes him look sophisticated? Of course, not! On the other hand, is that a fairly accurate description of most liberals in politics? Yes, it is. Most of them aren't evil per se, but as Margaret Thatcher said,
> 
> "Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag."
> 
> Liberals view themselves as good people because they're liberals. People who are outside of that ugly little bit of circular reasoning don't have such a benign view of their horrible behavior. So, what reason could you have to dislike liberals?
> 
> *1)* Only liberals would be cruel enough to pick on kids running lemonade stands with a permit, children putting on Christmas plays at school and the Boy Scouts.
> 
> *2)* Because the closest thing to Sodom and Gomorrah in the modern world is San Francisco and Berkeley.
> 
> *3) *Whether you're talking about cop killers, terrorists, radical Islamists or dictators, all you have to do is say, "I hate America," and liberals start to sympathize with you.
> 
> *4)* Liberals are actually bothered by people who do love America. On the rare occasion when you do see a liberal waving a flag, look for a camera.
> 
> *5)* The same people who voted Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama into office think they're smarter than tradition, the Founding Fathers and God Himself.
> 
> *6)* Liberals might not want to admit it, but the world would have been a better place if Mary Jo Kopechne had crawled up out of that car instead of Ted Kennedy.
> 
> *7)* Only an ass could like Bill Maher, Alan Grayson or Sheila Jackson Lee.
> 
> *8)* Liberals believe in taking money from people who earn it, handing it out as bribes in order to get more power and then using that power to hurt the people that are giving them money.
> 
> *9)* The same liberal who'll laugh at a rape joke about Sarah Palin and then attack Michele Bachmann's family will then turn around and accuse someone else of being sexist for respectfully noting that a woman is attractive.
> 
> *10)* Liberals view hooking people on welfare and food stamps as a core part of their election strategy, which is terrible for the country, shows they have no character and requires more than a little hatred for poor people.
> 
> *11)* The dumbest, most close-minded and mean spirited people in all of politics are inevitably liberals who are convinced they're brilliant, open-minded and compassionate because they call themselves liberals.
> 
> *12)* A policy that makes liberals feel superior and caring that doesn't work and wastes billions is considered a smashing success because they genuinely *DON'T CARE WHETHER THEIR POLICIES ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE OR NOT. *
> 
> *13)* The same liberal who pretends to be angry about Susan Smith or Casey Anthony will then turn around and give the thumbs up to women who do the same thing to their children via abortion.
> 
> *14)* There's a reason why the average homeschooled kid gets a better education than he would in a public school run by liberals. It's because the kid's parents are interested in educating him while his liberal teachers view public schools as just another way to indoctrinate children.
> 
> *15)* Noam Chomsky is an America-hating creep and to think of him as some kind of genius, you have to both despise our country enough to suspend your disbelief and be largely ignorant of world history.
> 
> *16)* Anyone whose first reaction after a terrorist attack is, "Why do they hate us?" is just an intolerable douche.
> 
> *17)* Liberals talk up Hillary Clinton as the most prominent and important female politician in America; yet her entire political career is based on the fact that she married Bill Clinton. That's actually kind of pathetic.
> 
> *18)* Liberals have been big supporters of slavery, Indian massacres, the KKK, eugenics, fascism, communism and Jim Crow laws. Then, down the road, after liberals finally join everyone else, they try to claim that conservatives still support all the practices that we fought liberals on from the beginning.
> 
> *19)* Liberals think black Americans are inferior to whites, which is why the worst, most crime-ridden places to live in America are inevitably run by liberals. That's acceptable to liberals because they don't think black Americans deserve any better.
> 
> *20)* A liberal is more likely to support a man who murders a cop like Mumia Abu Jamal than cops who want to regularly patrol a bad neighborhood in force to keep the criminals from terrorizing the innocent people who live there.
> 
> *21)* The average middle aged Tea Partier who's going to rallies, talking about the Constitution and calling for reduced spending cares more about "the children" than 99% of the liberals out there who demand that we support one stupid program after the other "for the children."
> 
> *22)* You have to be a horrible human being to be okay with terrorists like Bill Ayers teaching kids at a college.
> 
> *23)* Because liberals are unable to ever admit they're wrong, they systematically ruin and destroy everything they become involved with and then either point the finger elsewhere or demand even more government involvement to fix the problems they created.
> 
> *24)* Detroit &#8211; and, yes, liberals did that.
> 
> *25)* Even "liberal Christians" are generally supportive of other liberals who attack Christianity, which is why "liberal Christians" is in quotes.
> 
> 
> 25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals - John Hawkins - Page full
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pure hate disguised as knowledge. It is really sad that you right wingers believe this shit.
> 
> The history of conservatism is an abyss with ZERO accomplishments. Name ONE thing conservatives have ever done for anyone other than the hierarchy they worship? It is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone (1809 &#8211; 1898)
Click to expand...






> The history of conservatism is an abyss with ZERO accomplishments. Name ONE thing conservatives have ever done for anyone


Really?

Let me ask you something.  Do you enjoy road trips?  Do you like traveling by highway because you can get from point A to point B much quicker, right? Truck drivers can get merchandise to stores much quicker while traveling the highway road system, right?

If you answered "yes", to any of the questions, then who the hell do you think is responsible for those roads that you drive on?  *It sure the hell wasn't the liberals.* It's was the conservatives!  The conservatives helped to strenghten the American infrastructure, by improving the road system.  

You are wrong, so deal with it.  



> Liberalism is trust of the people


Really?  I don't trust them.

_Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are offended to discover that there are other views._
William F. Buckley, Jr. (1925-2008)


----------



## American_Jihad

*When Liberals Preach Fairness, Hold On To Your Wallet *

David Brunori
10/17/13

In a few weeks, voters in Colorado will have a chance to reform one of the most significant tax limitations ever enacted. Amendment 66, designed to raise nearly a billion dollars a year for education, would end the states flat income tax structure. It would mandate a progressive income tax  higher rates on the rich  and use the extra money for the children. In other words, it is a chance to take money from the Scrooge-like robber barons and give it to the poor, angelic urchins living in the squalor of the streets. Thats how its being sold, at least.

...

Just who will be treated more fairly if the measure passes? Not the working poor  thats for sure. The amendment would raise taxes not only on the rich, but on everyone. The current flat rate of 4.63 percent will go up for all people. It would rise to 5 percent if you make up to $75,000 and 5.9 percent if you make more than that. Yes, poor workers will pay more than they do now!

*The only winners are the teachers unions and friends of politicians who sell stuff to school districts. Im not sure how raising the tax burden on someone who earns $30,000 a year can ever be characterized as fair. Whats fair about asking the auto mechanic or waitress to pay more so that the governors supporters are enriched?*

...

Sure, the rich will pay more (and relatively much more). But supporters of the measure are asking the working poor to pay as well. There is nothing fair or just or noble about that. And Coloradans have rejected similar proposals. Indeed, in 2011 voters overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 103, which would have raised $3 billion for the schools. The working stiffs in Colorado can only hope for a repeat.

When Liberals Preach Fairness, Hold On To Your Wallet - Forbes


----------



## Bfgrn

Immanuel said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pure hate disguised as knowledge. It is really sad that you right wingers believe this shit.
> 
> The history of conservatism is an abyss with ZERO accomplishments. Name ONE thing conservatives have ever done for anyone other than the hierarchy they worship? It is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone (1809  1898)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I see in that list is nothing but a bunch of nasty personal attacks and a bunch of lies that show more about the person using it for anything at all, then it does about Liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that bfgrn bitches about someone else's hate is absolutely hilarious and hypocritical.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


The word 'hate' only appears in your post, not mine Immie. 

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

And to address Foxfyre's ad nauseam false claim that somehow conservatives are _really_ liberals...

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan


----------



## westwall

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I see in that list is nothing but a bunch of nasty personal attacks and a bunch of lies that show more about the person using it for anything at all, then it does about Liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that bfgrn bitches about someone else's hate is absolutely hilarious and hypocritical.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word 'hate' only appears in your post, not mine Immie.
> 
> The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.
> 
> And to address Foxfyre's ad nauseam false claim that somehow conservatives are _really_ liberals...
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan
Click to expand...







The problem with you and yours is you aren't really "liberal".  You're "progressives" which is terrible.  Liberals are good people who are interested in fairness for all.  They sometimes let emotion take over for common sense but in the whole their goals are laudable.

You clowns on the other hand, there is nothing good about progressives.

"Progressives generally greeted the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in Russia with great enthusiasm, embracing it as a worthy effort to create a socialist utopia. In the 1920s and 1930s, a host of credulous progressive journalists traveled to Russia to chronicle the the revolution's afterglow, so as to inform Americans about the historic significance of what was transpiring there. According to author Jonah Goldberg: Most liberals saw the Bolsheviks as a popular and progressive movement.... Nearly the entire liberal elite, including much of FDR's Brain Trust, made the pilgrimage to Moscow to take admiring notes on the Soviet experiment.

"Just as progressives were generally enthusiastic about socialist movements in the Soviet Union and Europe, they were also overwhelmingly supportive of the fascist movements in Italy and Germany during the 1920s and 1930s. In many respects, writes journalist Jonah Goldberg, the founding fathers of modern liberalism, the men and women who laid the intellectual groundwork of the New Deal and the welfare state, thought that fascism sounded like ... a worthwhile 'experiment': 

H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become liberal fascists and enlightened Nazis. Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic. Calling for a Phoenix Rebirth of Liberalism under the umbrella of Liberal Fascism, Wells said: I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.
The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself pro-Mussolini personally.
The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolinis efforts: Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.
Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by petty persons with petty purposes. Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been formed by God out of the rib of Italy.
McClures Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.
After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed Ambassador-at-Large of the United States by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: Im pretty high on that bird. Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government, Rogers wrote, that is, if you have the right dictator.
Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him a despot with a dimple.
NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been absolutely necessary to get the state in order. In 1937 DuBois stated: there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.
FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.
New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was trying out the economics of fascism.
Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the worlds great progressive leaders because they did things, unlike the leaders of those putrefying corpses called parliamentary democracies.


Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks

See?  All of your goals end with the death of millions and either you're too stupid to understand that or you don't care.  Either way you are despicable.


----------



## Immanuel

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I see in that list is nothing but a bunch of nasty personal attacks and a bunch of lies that show more about the person using it for anything at all, then it does about Liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that bfgrn bitches about someone else's hate is absolutely hilarious and hypocritical.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word 'hate' only appears in your post, not mine Immie.
> 
> The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.
> 
> And to address Foxfyre's ad nauseam false claim that somehow conservatives are _really_ liberals...
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan
Click to expand...


Sorry, but everyone of your posts in this thread and most of the ones you participate in wreak of hatred for conservatives.  You simply cannot deny that and continue to live as an honest human being.

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn

westwall said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that bfgrn bitches about someone else's hate is absolutely hilarious and hypocritical.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word 'hate' only appears in your post, not mine Immie.
> 
> The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.
> 
> And to address Foxfyre's ad nauseam false claim that somehow conservatives are _really_ liberals...
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with you and yours is you aren't really "liberal".  You're "progressives" which is terrible.  Liberals are good people who are interested in fairness for all.  They sometimes let emotion take over for common sense but in the whole their goals are laudable.
> 
> You clowns on the other hand, there is nothing good about progressives.
> 
> "Progressives generally greeted the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in Russia with great enthusiasm, embracing it as a worthy effort to create a socialist utopia. In the 1920s and 1930s, a host of credulous progressive journalists traveled to Russia to chronicle the the revolution's afterglow, so as to inform Americans about the historic significance of what was transpiring there. According to author Jonah Goldberg: Most liberals saw the Bolsheviks as a popular and progressive movement.... Nearly the entire liberal elite, including much of FDR's Brain Trust, made the pilgrimage to Moscow to take admiring notes on the Soviet experiment.
> 
> "Just as progressives were generally enthusiastic about socialist movements in the Soviet Union and Europe, they were also overwhelmingly supportive of the fascist movements in Italy and Germany during the 1920s and 1930s. In many respects, writes journalist Jonah Goldberg, the founding fathers of modern liberalism, the men and women who laid the intellectual groundwork of the New Deal and the welfare state, thought that fascism sounded like ... a worthwhile 'experiment':
> 
> H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become liberal fascists and enlightened Nazis. Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic. Calling for a Phoenix Rebirth of Liberalism under the umbrella of Liberal Fascism, Wells said: I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.
> The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself pro-Mussolini personally.
> The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolinis efforts: Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.
> Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by petty persons with petty purposes. Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been formed by God out of the rib of Italy.
> McClures Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.
> After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed Ambassador-at-Large of the United States by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: Im pretty high on that bird. Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government, Rogers wrote, that is, if you have the right dictator.
> Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him a despot with a dimple.
> NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been absolutely necessary to get the state in order. In 1937 DuBois stated: there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.
> FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.
> New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was trying out the economics of fascism.
> Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the worlds great progressive leaders because they did things, unlike the leaders of those putrefying corpses called parliamentary democracies.
> 
> 
> Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks
> 
> See?  All of your goals end with the death of millions and either you're too stupid to understand that or you don't care.  Either way you are despicable.
Click to expand...


There was a time when I thought you were a moderate conservative. But something has changed...drastically. I suspect you have been listening to right wing propaganda. Turn it off Immie. It is rotting your brain.

Your post has nothing to do with today. All you need to do is look at the recent shutdown of government to see who the radicals really are. Teabaggers who loathe everything about America are trying to destroy this nation. WAKE UP Immie.


----------



## Mr. H.

I hate Liberals because they believe in their heart of hearts that they are correct, and I am abjectly wrong. And for that I have lost several friends over the years. 

I dearly want to love them my friends, but if they choose to have absolutely no common ground with me... 

well then, fuck 'em.


----------



## Mr. H.

I always seek a common ground. In friends, foes, and strangers. 

Yet, the smoker they drink... the player I become.


----------



## Wyld Kard

And yet another reason why I hate liberals.

No matter what it is, liberals believe that Obama can do no wrong nor say no wrong, because in their hearts and brain-washed minds, he is perfect or close to perfection.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Wildcard said:


> And yet another reason why I hate liberals.
> 
> No matter what it is, liberals believe that Obama can do no wrong nor say no wrong, because in their hearts and brain-washed minds, he is perfect or close to perfection.



Really? You've got proof of this?


----------



## mamooth

It's actually what Wildcard thinks about Obama. Many conservatives have a big mancrush on the President. They can't admit to such a forbidden love openly, so they say what they feel by projecting it on to someone else.


----------



## mamooth

Bfgrn said:


> There was a time when I thought you were a moderate conservative. But something has changed...drastically. I suspect you have been listening to right wing propaganda. Turn it off Immie. It is rotting your brain.



That was Westwall, not Immanuel.

Otherwise, spot on. The liberal-haters in general are kind of crazy and paranoid, seeing dark liberal enemies lurking behind every bush.


----------



## Foxfyre

Bgfrn continues to demonstrate the kind of reading comprehension dysfunction that seems to plague those of his ideology.  (I still think it must be something in the water they drink.)

I have not said modern conservatives are liberal.  I have said what we usually label modern day conservatism is almost a mirror image of what was 18th and 19th century liberalism.  But because modern day liberalism resembles 18th and 19th century liberalism not at all, I prefer to call it 'classical liberalism' or that liberalism embraced by the Founders.  You know, the liberalism that modern day liberals now mostly reject and/or deem irrelevent or stupid or no longer applicable.

But I don't expect modern day liberals to be honest about that.

Here is a fairly good definition of classical liberalism:

Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.



> Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.
> What Is Classical Liberalism? | NCPA


----------



## Wyld Kard

Wolfsister77 said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet another reason why I hate liberals.
> 
> No matter what it is, liberals believe that Obama can do no wrong nor say no wrong, because in their hearts and brain-washed minds, he is perfect or close to perfection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You've got proof of this?
Click to expand...


Really?  Are you serious?

Most of you liberals if not all, will vilify and attack anyone who critizes Obama's policies, his decisions, or he himself.  That is a fact.

For example, Obama NEVER took full resonsibilty for what happened in Benghazi, because he was more concerned about covering his own ass while having his people cover up the truth.

Obama knew that the embassy was located in an extremely unstable and dangerous area, but failed to provide the necessary security. Thus, the blood of those who were killed is on the hands on Obama. 

However, you liberals will not acknowledge or accept anything negative said about Obama, which in turn will lead the liberals to "play the blame game" and blame everyone else.  Because liberal logic would dictate that surely something like Benghazi, cannot be Obama's fault, and you liberals WILL NOT BELIEVE OR ACCEPT ANYTHING LESS.


----------



## Wyld Kard

mamooth said:


> It's actually what Wildcard thinks about Obama. Many conservatives have a big mancrush on the President. They can't admit to such a forbidden love openly, so they say what they feel by projecting it on to someone else.



Hey Mamooth,

Do you practice being stupid or does it come naturally for you?


----------



## Wolfsister77

Wildcard said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet another reason why I hate liberals.
> 
> No matter what it is, liberals believe that Obama can do no wrong nor say no wrong, because in their hearts and brain-washed minds, he is perfect or close to perfection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You've got proof of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Are you serious?
> 
> Most of you liberals if not all, will vilify and attack anyone who critizes Obama's policies, his decisions, or he himself.  That is a fact.
> 
> For example, Obama NEVER took full resonsibilty for what happened in Benghazi, because he was more concerned about covering his own ass while having his people cover up the truth.
> 
> Obama knew that the embassy was located in an extremely unstable and dangerous area, but failed to provide the necessary security. Thus, the blood of those who were killed is on the hands on Obama.
> 
> However, you liberals will not acknowledge or accept anything negative said about Obama, which in turn will lead the liberals to "play the blame game" and blame everyone else.  Because liberal logic would dictate that surely something like Benghazi, cannot be Obama's fault, and you liberals WILL NOT BELIEVE OR ACCEPT ANYTHING LESS.
Click to expand...


Riiiight, I love when people tell me what a whole group of people think or believe. Who thinks Obama is perfection or close to it? I don't. I think he's made some mistakes. He's not a God and the only ones who call him a messiah are those on the right. If you can't criticize your elected officials, including the President, who can you criticize?

Having said that, I don't blame Benghazi on Obama entirely. It happened on his watch. Mistakes were made. But I am not as rabid about that as some on the right. Mainly those who think Obama should get no credit for Bin Laden's death, staged a woman fainting for some reason, and think he stood by and allowed these folks in Benghazi to die and wouldn't help them, you know those with ODS................


----------



## Pogo

Wildcard said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually what Wildcard thinks about Obama. Many conservatives have a big mancrush on the President. They can't admit to such a forbidden love openly, so they say what they feel by projecting it on to someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Mamooth,
> 
> Do you practice being stupid or does it come naturally for you?
Click to expand...


Ummm..... read your own posts, Einstein:



Wildcard said:


> And yet another reason why I hate liberals.
> 
> No matter what it is, liberals believe that Obama can do no wrong nor say no wrong, because in their hearts and brain-washed minds, he is perfect or close to perfection.









_DUH._


----------



## Foxfyre

Wolfsister77 said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You've got proof of this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Are you serious?
> 
> Most of you liberals if not all, will vilify and attack anyone who critizes Obama's policies, his decisions, or he himself.  That is a fact.
> 
> For example, Obama NEVER took full resonsibilty for what happened in Benghazi, because he was more concerned about covering his own ass while having his people cover up the truth.
> 
> Obama knew that the embassy was located in an extremely unstable and dangerous area, but failed to provide the necessary security. Thus, the blood of those who were killed is on the hands on Obama.
> 
> However, you liberals will not acknowledge or accept anything negative said about Obama, which in turn will lead the liberals to "play the blame game" and blame everyone else.  Because liberal logic would dictate that surely something like Benghazi, cannot be Obama's fault, and you liberals WILL NOT BELIEVE OR ACCEPT ANYTHING LESS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiight, I love when people tell me what a whole group of people think or believe. Who thinks Obama is perfection or close to it? I don't. I think he's made some mistakes. He's not a God and the only ones who call him a messiah are those on the right. If you can't criticize your elected officials, including the President, who can you criticize?
> 
> Having said that, I don't blame Benghazi on Obama entirely. It happened on his watch. Mistakes were made. But I am not as rabid about that as some on the right. Mainly those who think Obama should get no credit for Bin Laden's death, staged a woman fainting for some reason, and think he stood by and allowed these folks in Benghazi to die and wouldn't help them, you know those with ODS................
Click to expand...


It isn't so much being eager to accuse Obama, Wolfsister, but an expectation that our President be honest and up front with us.  When those who criticize him are presumably targeted by government agencies, it raises valid suspicions about his integrity and his motives.  When gag orders are clamped on ALL witnesses to the Benghazi attack, 'why?" is a fair question and it is not unreasonable or illegitimate to believe they are hiding something.  When there is grevious misconduct on the part of government agencies and no heads roll, we have valid reason to believe the President approved that misconduct and doesn't dare punish those he ordered lest they testify that they were ordered.   When you have scandal after scandal after scandal in which nobody seems to know who ordered the misconduct, you have to believe the President knew more than he says he knew.  And when he says again and again and again that he didn't know, it is reasonable to expect that a) he is lying or b) he is totally incompetent.

If this happened once, we could shrug it off as a glitch.  But when it happens again and again and again, it is too much to expect reasonable people to ignore it.


----------



## mamooth

Foxfyre said:


> When those who criticize him are presumably targeted by government agencies, it raises valid suspicions about his integrity and his motives.



"Presumably" meaning "The voices in my head told me this". Or some blog. Same difference.

The only valid questions being raised here concern the mental stability of the ODS crowd.


----------



## thanatos144

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> When those who criticize him are presumably targeted by government agencies, it raises valid suspicions about his integrity and his motives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Presumably" meaning "The voices in my head told me this". Or some blog. Same difference.
> 
> The only valid questions being raised here concern the mental stability of the ODS crowd.
Click to expand...


You mean the IRS targeting tea party organizations wasn't real?


----------



## Foxfyre

thanatos144 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> When those who criticize him are presumably targeted by government agencies, it raises valid suspicions about his integrity and his motives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Presumably" meaning "The voices in my head told me this". Or some blog. Same difference.
> 
> The only valid questions being raised here concern the mental stability of the ODS crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the IRS targeting tea party organizations wasn't real?
Click to expand...


Also. . . . 

The DOJ targeting James Rosen and his family wasn't real?

Grabbing e-mails specifically of AP reporters wasn't real?

The refusal to disclose names of people who ordered improper invasion of privacy or targeting of conservative groups isn't real?

The gag order on Benghazi witnesses is not real?

The fact that there has been little or no disciplinary action re improper conduct is not real?

When you have the most liberal media sources reporting this stuff about their own 'messiah', you can be damn sure it is real.


----------



## Mr. H.

Short-sighted and short-minded.


Sent from my ass using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bgfrn continues to demonstrate the kind of reading comprehension dysfunction that seems to plague those of his ideology.  (I still think it must be something in the water they drink.)
> 
> I have not said modern conservatives are liberal.  I have said what we usually label modern day conservatism is almost a mirror image of what was 18th and 19th century liberalism.  But because modern day liberalism resembles 18th and 19th century liberalism not at all, I prefer to call it 'classical liberalism' or that liberalism embraced by the Founders.  You know, the liberalism that modern day liberals now mostly reject and/or deem irrelevent or stupid or no longer applicable.
> 
> But I don't expect modern day liberals to be honest about that.
> 
> Here is a fairly good definition of classical liberalism:
> 
> Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.
> What Is Classical Liberalism? | NCPA
Click to expand...


There is nothing about modern day conservatives that resembles our founding father's beliefs. I have posted this before and you continue to refuse to address it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

*Early laws regulating corporations in America*

    *Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

    *Corporations licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

    *The state legislature could revoke a corporations charter if it misbehaved.

    *The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

    *As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldnt break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were just doing their job when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

    *Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

    *Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

    *Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted in perpetuity, as is now the practice).

    *Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

    *Corporations real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

    *Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

    *Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

    *State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

    *All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What caused the Progressive movement

We tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.

It was opposition to that same Gilded Age that was the genesis of the Progressive movement in this country. When you study history, almost always just cause is behind it.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
Me


----------



## thanatos144

Why do people hate liberals?  Because fascists suck


----------



## mamooth

thanatos144 said:


> You mean the IRS targeting tea party organizations wasn't real?



What rock have you been hiding under? That phony scandal fizzled long ago, just like all the other phony scandals.

People like you and Fox and are cultists. You barricade yourselves inside an anti-reality bubble and repeat only the various conspiracies which you've been fed. Any information from outside your cult is instantly defined as "liberal propaganda", and hence ignored, which ensures your bubble stays intact.


----------



## Wolfsister77

My question about that is why the Tea Party or any political group was even applying for tax exempt status with the IRS in the first place.


----------



## Wyld Kard

Wolfsister77 said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You've got proof of this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Are you serious?
> 
> Most of you liberals if not all, will vilify and attack anyone who critizes Obama's policies, his decisions, or he himself.  That is a fact.
> 
> For example, Obama NEVER took full resonsibilty for what happened in Benghazi, because he was more concerned about covering his own ass while having his people cover up the truth.
> 
> Obama knew that the embassy was located in an extremely unstable and dangerous area, but failed to provide the necessary security. Thus, the blood of those who were killed is on the hands on Obama.
> 
> However, you liberals will not acknowledge or accept anything negative said about Obama, which in turn will lead the liberals to "play the blame game" and blame everyone else.  Because liberal logic would dictate that surely something like Benghazi, cannot be Obama's fault, and you liberals WILL NOT BELIEVE OR ACCEPT ANYTHING LESS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiight, I love when people tell me what a whole group of people think or believe. Who thinks Obama is perfection or close to it? I don't. I think he's made some mistakes. He's not a God and the only ones who call him a messiah are those on the right. If you can't criticize your elected officials, including the President, who can you criticize?
> 
> Having said that, I don't blame Benghazi on Obama entirely. It happened on his watch. Mistakes were made. But I am not as rabid about that as some on the right. Mainly those who think Obama should get no credit for Bin Laden's death, staged a woman fainting for some reason, and think he stood by and allowed these folks in Benghazi to die and wouldn't help them, you know those with ODS................
Click to expand...




> Who thinks Obama is perfection or close to it?


Apparently the moronic liberal Obama supporting parents of the kid who prayed to Obama does.  

*You are good, Barack Obama: Video shows little boy praying to the president*
By Jessica Chasmar

The Washington Times
Monday, August 12, 2013 

 A video posted to YouTube on Sunday quickly went viral, because it shows a little boy praying to, not for, the commander in chief.

Squeezing his eyes closed tight, the boy, Stephen, says, Barack Obama, thank you for doing everything and all the kind stuff. Thank you for all the stuff that you helped us with.

Thank you for taking the courage and responsibility for everything youve done for us, the boy continues, adding that God has given the president a special power.

You are good, Barack Obama. You are great, he concludes, throwing his arms in the arms and screaming, Barack Obama!

The video, titled Prayer for President Barack Obama, was posted by Regina Young, presumably the boys mother, with a description reading: The prayer that he wanted to say for our President is priceless.

The reaction to the boys prayer has been disproportionately negative.

You should be ashamed of yourself for teaching your child that it is acceptable to pray to a man, and not God, one commenter wrote. Especially a&#65279; man hell bent on destroying our nation. Stop breeding..immediately.

Disgusting. Pray for this&#65279; poor childs soul, another said.

'You are good, Barack Obama': Video shows little boy praying to the president - Washington Times


----------



## Superbus

I agree with these definitions, though they are, of course, general, and non-elastic. The explicit conservatives that I know do seem to have binary opinions, rather than varied. This does not constitute a static opinion of that demographic, only a trend that I have personally noticed.


----------



## Pogo

Wildcard said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Are you serious?
> 
> Most of you liberals if not all, will vilify and attack anyone who critizes Obama's policies, his decisions, or he himself.  That is a fact.
> 
> For example, Obama NEVER took full resonsibilty for what happened in Benghazi, because he was more concerned about covering his own ass while having his people cover up the truth.
> 
> Obama knew that the embassy was located in an extremely unstable and dangerous area, but failed to provide the necessary security. Thus, the blood of those who were killed is on the hands on Obama.
> 
> However, you liberals will not acknowledge or accept anything negative said about Obama, which in turn will lead the liberals to "play the blame game" and blame everyone else.  Because liberal logic would dictate that surely something like Benghazi, cannot be Obama's fault, and you liberals WILL NOT BELIEVE OR ACCEPT ANYTHING LESS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiight, I love when people tell me what a whole group of people think or believe. Who thinks Obama is perfection or close to it? I don't. I think he's made some mistakes. He's not a God and the only ones who call him a messiah are those on the right. If you can't criticize your elected officials, including the President, who can you criticize?
> 
> Having said that, I don't blame Benghazi on Obama entirely. It happened on his watch. Mistakes were made. But I am not as rabid about that as some on the right. Mainly those who think Obama should get no credit for Bin Laden's death, staged a woman fainting for some reason, and think he stood by and allowed these folks in Benghazi to die and wouldn't help them, you know those with ODS................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who thinks Obama is perfection or close to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently the moronic liberal Obama supporting parents of the kid who prayed to Obama does.
> 
> *&#8216;You are good, Barack Obama&#8217;: Video shows little boy praying to the president*
> By Jessica Chasmar
> 
> The Washington Times
> Monday, August 12, 2013
> 
> A video posted to YouTube on Sunday quickly went viral, because it shows a little boy praying to, not for, the commander in chief.
> 
> Squeezing his eyes closed tight, the boy, Stephen, says, &#8220;Barack Obama, thank you for doing everything and all the kind stuff. Thank you for all the stuff that you helped us with.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;Thank you for taking the courage and responsibility for everything you&#8217;ve done for us,&#8221; the boy continues, adding that God has given the president &#8220;a special power.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;You are good, Barack Obama. You are great,&#8221; he concludes, throwing his arms in the arms and screaming, &#8220;Barack Obama!&#8221;
> 
> The video, titled &#8220;Prayer for President Barack Obama,&#8221; was posted by Regina Young, presumably the boy&#8217;s mother, with a description reading: &#8220;The prayer that he wanted to say for our President is priceless.&#8221;
> 
> The reaction to the boy&#8217;s prayer has been disproportionately negative.
> 
> &#8220;You should be ashamed of yourself for teaching your child that it is acceptable to pray to a man, and not God,&#8221; one commenter wrote. &#8220;Especially a&#65279; man hell bent on destroying our nation. Stop breeding..immediately.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;Disgusting. Pray for this&#65279; poor child&#8217;s soul,&#8221; another said.
> 
> 'You are good, Barack Obama': Video shows little boy praying to the president - Washington Times
Click to expand...


So the existence of this little kid -- or his parents (which is plural and would get the plural verb _do_, not _does,_ but I digress) mean that "all liberals" share their philosophy in toto?  Even though we don't even know the parents' philosophies and all you have here is extrapolated assumptions based on their being the parents of a -- what, six, seven year old boy? 

Here's a child trying to assimilate the sky-creature-as-God fantasy, gets his prepositions  mixed up, and you want to hang your point on _that_?

Have you learned absolutely *nothing *from the last few posts?


Here's what's really going on, Joker.

You and your fellow misanthropes, like the kid reaching to grasp the sky-god concept, are so simpleminded you actually need to anthropomorphize your fears, along with anything you don't understand, into a scapegoat group that is responsible for all evil, all  turmoil, everything that changes before you're ready for it.  So since you don't understand what "liberals" are anyway, the word becomes convenient to use them as a dartboard for your own ignorance.

Government policy you don't like?  Liberals.  Social change you don't like?  Liberals.  Price of gas going up?  Liberals.  Hemorrhoids?  Liberals.  On and on, because that's far easier than addressing issues thoughtfully.  No muss, no fuss, immediate solutions in tasty bite-size morsels.  After all you're an American and expect instant gratification, not brain sweat.

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


----------



## Wyld Kard

Pogo said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiight, I love when people tell me what a whole group of people think or believe. Who thinks Obama is perfection or close to it? I don't. I think he's made some mistakes. He's not a God and the only ones who call him a messiah are those on the right. If you can't criticize your elected officials, including the President, who can you criticize?
> 
> Having said that, I don't blame Benghazi on Obama entirely. It happened on his watch. Mistakes were made. But I am not as rabid about that as some on the right. Mainly those who think Obama should get no credit for Bin Laden's death, staged a woman fainting for some reason, and think he stood by and allowed these folks in Benghazi to die and wouldn't help them, you know those with ODS................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who thinks Obama is perfection or close to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently the moronic liberal Obama supporting parents of the kid who prayed to Obama does.
> 
> *You are good, Barack Obama: Video shows little boy praying to the president*
> By Jessica Chasmar
> 
> The Washington Times
> Monday, August 12, 2013
> 
> A video posted to YouTube on Sunday quickly went viral, because it shows a little boy praying to, not for, the commander in chief.
> 
> Squeezing his eyes closed tight, the boy, Stephen, says, Barack Obama, thank you for doing everything and all the kind stuff. Thank you for all the stuff that you helped us with.
> 
> Thank you for taking the courage and responsibility for everything youve done for us, the boy continues, adding that God has given the president a special power.
> 
> You are good, Barack Obama. You are great, he concludes, throwing his arms in the arms and screaming, Barack Obama!
> 
> The video, titled Prayer for President Barack Obama, was posted by Regina Young, presumably the boys mother, with a description reading: The prayer that he wanted to say for our President is priceless.
> 
> The reaction to the boys prayer has been disproportionately negative.
> 
> You should be ashamed of yourself for teaching your child that it is acceptable to pray to a man, and not God, one commenter wrote. Especially a&#65279; man hell bent on destroying our nation. Stop breeding..immediately.
> 
> Disgusting. Pray for this&#65279; poor childs soul, another said.
> 
> 'You are good, Barack Obama': Video shows little boy praying to the president - Washington Times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the existence of this little kid -- or his parents (which is plural and would get the plural verb _do_, not _does,_ but I digress) mean that "all liberals" share their philosophy in toto?  Even though we don't even know the parents' philosophies and all you have here is extrapolated assumptions based on their being the parents of a -- what, six, seven year old boy?
> 
> Here's a child trying to assimilate the sky-creature-as-God fantasy, gets his prepositions  mixed up, and you want to hang your point on _that_?
> 
> Have you learned absolutely *nothing *from the last few posts?
> 
> 
> Here's what's really going on, Joker.
> 
> You and your fellow misanthropes, like the kid reaching to grasp the sky-god concept, are so simpleminded you actually need to anthropomorphize your fears, along with anything you don't understand, into a scapegoat group that is responsible for all evil, all  turmoil, everything that changes before you're ready for it.  So since you don't understand what "liberals" are anyway, the word becomes convenient to use them as a dartboard for your own ignorance.
> 
> Government policy you don't like?  Liberals.  Social change you don't like?  Liberals.  Price of gas going up?  Liberals.  Hemorrhoids?  Liberals.  On and on, because that's far easier than addressing issues thoughtfully.  No muss, no fuss, immediate solutions in tasty bite-size morsels.  After all you're an American and expect instant gratification, not brain sweat.
> 
> It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Click to expand...




> So the existence of this little kid -- or his parents mean that "all liberals" share their philosophy


That is a moronic statement, but if you are implying that because that kid was praying to Obama, than that must mean that "all liberals" share that families philosophy, and I seriously doubt that.  The existence of the kid is irrelevant.



> You and your fellow misanthropes, like the kid reaching to grasp the sky-god concept, are so simpleminded you actually need to anthropomorphize your fears, along with anything you don't understand, into a scapegoat group that is responsible for all evil, all  turmoil, everything that changes before you're ready for it.


This whole statement is equal to a big steaming pile of shit.   

Here's what's really going on, dumbass.

You are implying that I'm "reaching to grasp the sky-god concept", in other words that I'm a believer in god, and you are WRONG.  I'm not religious nor am I a believer in god.  TRY AGAIN.  



> So since you don't understand what "liberals" are anyway


I understand enough, and I don't like them nor trust them!


----------



## Pogo

Wildcard said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently the moronic liberal Obama supporting parents of the kid who prayed to Obama does.
> 
> *&#8216;You are good, Barack Obama&#8217;: Video shows little boy praying to the president*
> By Jessica Chasmar
> 
> The Washington Times
> Monday, August 12, 2013
> 
> A video posted to YouTube on Sunday quickly went viral, because it shows a little boy praying to, not for, the commander in chief.
> 
> Squeezing his eyes closed tight, the boy, Stephen, says, &#8220;Barack Obama, thank you for doing everything and all the kind stuff. Thank you for all the stuff that you helped us with.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;Thank you for taking the courage and responsibility for everything you&#8217;ve done for us,&#8221; the boy continues, adding that God has given the president &#8220;a special power.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;You are good, Barack Obama. You are great,&#8221; he concludes, throwing his arms in the arms and screaming, &#8220;Barack Obama!&#8221;
> 
> The video, titled &#8220;Prayer for President Barack Obama,&#8221; was posted by Regina Young, presumably the boy&#8217;s mother, with a description reading: &#8220;The prayer that he wanted to say for our President is priceless.&#8221;
> 
> The reaction to the boy&#8217;s prayer has been disproportionately negative.
> 
> &#8220;You should be ashamed of yourself for teaching your child that it is acceptable to pray to a man, and not God,&#8221; one commenter wrote. &#8220;Especially a&#65279; man hell bent on destroying our nation. Stop breeding..immediately.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;Disgusting. Pray for this&#65279; poor child&#8217;s soul,&#8221; another said.
> 
> 'You are good, Barack Obama': Video shows little boy praying to the president - Washington Times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the existence of this little kid -- or his parents (which is plural and would get the plural verb _do_, not _does,_ but I digress) mean that "all liberals" share their philosophy in toto?  Even though we don't even know the parents' philosophies and all you have here is extrapolated assumptions based on their being the parents of a -- what, six, seven year old boy?
> 
> Here's a child trying to assimilate the sky-creature-as-God fantasy, gets his prepositions  mixed up, and you want to hang your point on _that_?
> 
> Have you learned absolutely *nothing *from the last few posts?
> 
> 
> Here's what's really going on, Joker.
> 
> You and your fellow misanthropes, like the kid reaching to grasp the sky-god concept, are so simpleminded you actually need to anthropomorphize your fears, along with anything you don't understand, into a scapegoat group that is responsible for all evil, all  turmoil, everything that changes before you're ready for it.  So since you don't understand what "liberals" are anyway, the word becomes convenient to use them as a dartboard for your own ignorance.
> 
> Government policy you don't like?  Liberals.  Social change you don't like?  Liberals.  Price of gas going up?  Liberals.  Hemorrhoids?  Liberals.  On and on, because that's far easier than addressing issues thoughtfully.  No muss, no fuss, immediate solutions in tasty bite-size morsels.  After all you're an American and expect instant gratification, not brain sweat.
> 
> It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is a moronic statement, but if you are implying that because that kid was praying to Obama, than that must mean that "all liberals" share that families philosophy, and I seriously doubt that.  The existence of the kid is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  So why did you bring him up?  You went to an awful lot of trouble to copy profusely from the Moonie Times to make a point that has no point.  Wtf?



Wildcard said:


> You and your fellow misanthropes, like the kid reaching to grasp the sky-god concept, are so simpleminded you actually need to anthropomorphize your fears, along with anything you don't understand, into a scapegoat group that is responsible for all evil, all  turmoil, everything that changes before you're ready for it.
> 
> 
> 
> This whole statement is equal to a big steaming pile of shit.
> 
> Here's what's really going on, dumbass.
> 
> You are implying that I'm "reaching to grasp the sky-god concept", in other words that I'm a believer in god, and you are WRONG.  I'm not religious nor am I a believer in god.  TRY AGAIN.
Click to expand...


::::whhhoooooosssshhhh::::  missed the entire point there, Evelyn Wood.  Not even remotely close.
Maybe _you _should try again.  Slowly this time.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Why Do People Hate Liberals?*​
By Bob Cesca · July 25,2012 

By Bob Cesca: Its only slightly less frustrating to watch Fox News Channel and to listen to right-wing talk radio as it often is to observe progressives choke on their own well-meaning, but ultimately self-defeating tongues.

Seriously, the act of observing fellow liberals every day on the blogs, on The Facebook and elsewhere too often makes me want to smash my computer using a team of monkeys brandishing explosive wiffle bats. Specifically, the act of watching progressives who dont understand the realities of American government and politics, watching progressives desperately seeking reasonable conservatives in some sort of futile attempt at détente, and watching hipster cool-kid progressives undermining support for the most liberal president of our time might actually make me lose my shpadoinkle, even though I generally feel pretty centered.

To be honest, I didnt intend to get into yet another column-length rant about this topic until I read a piece on Salon by Alex Pareene who thinks, Aaron Sorkin is why people hate liberals.

_Hes a smug, condescending know-it-all who isnt as smart as he thinks he is. His feints toward open-mindedness are transparently phony, he mistakes his opinion for common sense, and hes preachy. Sorkin has spent years fueling the delusional self-regard of well-educated liberals. He might be more responsible than anyone else for the anti-democratic everyone would agree with us if they werent all so stupid attitude of the contemporary progressive movement. And age is not improving him._

...

Why Do People Hate Liberals? | The Daily Banter


----------



## Billo_Really

American_Jihad said:


> *Why Do People Hate Liberals?*​
> By Bob Cesca · July 25,2012
> 
> By Bob Cesca: Its only slightly less frustrating to watch Fox News Channel and to listen to right-wing talk radio as it often is to observe progressives choke on their own well-meaning, but ultimately self-defeating tongues.
> 
> Seriously, the act of observing fellow liberals every day on the blogs, on The Facebook and elsewhere too often makes me want to smash my computer using a team of monkeys brandishing explosive wiffle bats. Specifically, the act of watching progressives who dont understand the realities of American government and politics, watching progressives desperately seeking reasonable conservatives in some sort of futile attempt at détente, and watching hipster cool-kid progressives undermining support for the most liberal president of our time might actually make me lose my shpadoinkle, even though I generally feel pretty centered.
> 
> To be honest, I didnt intend to get into yet another column-length rant about this topic until I read a piece on Salon by Alex Pareene who thinks, Aaron Sorkin is why people hate liberals.
> 
> _Hes a smug, condescending know-it-all who isnt as smart as he thinks he is. His feints toward open-mindedness are transparently phony, he mistakes his opinion for common sense, and hes preachy. Sorkin has spent years fueling the delusional self-regard of well-educated liberals. He might be more responsible than anyone else for the anti-democratic everyone would agree with us if they werent all so stupid attitude of the contemporary progressive movement. And age is not improving him._
> 
> ...
> 
> Why Do People Hate Liberals? | The Daily Banter


The polls show this is a liberal country.


----------



## JWBooth

thanatos144 said:


> Why do people hate liberals?  Because fascists suck


And as you are a pole smoking fascist you would know best.


----------



## thanatos144

JWBooth said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people hate liberals?  Because fascists suck
> 
> 
> 
> And as you are a pole smoking fascist you would know best.
Click to expand...


I care what a racist like you thinks why?


----------



## mamooth

ODS kooks, do you even understand that normal, healthy humans don't spend their days obsessing about creating ever more strange reasons to hate people?

Y'all just aren't right in the head.


----------



## RKMBrown

mamooth said:


> ODS kooks, do you even understand that normal, healthy humans don't spend their days obsessing about creating ever more strange reasons to hate people?
> 
> Y'all just aren't right in the head.



Don't need to create reasons to hate libs, they are doing a great job of that on their own.  Pretty much the only thing they are good at.


----------



## American_Jihad

Billo_Really said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Do People Hate Liberals?*​
> By Bob Cesca · July 25,2012
> 
> By Bob Cesca: Its only slightly less frustrating to watch Fox News Channel and to listen to right-wing talk radio as it often is to observe progressives choke on their own well-meaning, but ultimately self-defeating tongues.
> 
> Seriously, the act of observing fellow liberals every day on the blogs, on The Facebook and elsewhere too often makes me want to smash my computer using a team of monkeys brandishing explosive wiffle bats. Specifically, the act of watching progressives who dont understand the realities of American government and politics, watching progressives desperately seeking reasonable conservatives in some sort of futile attempt at détente, and watching hipster cool-kid progressives undermining support for the most liberal president of our time might actually make me lose my shpadoinkle, even though I generally feel pretty centered.
> 
> To be honest, I didnt intend to get into yet another column-length rant about this topic until I read a piece on Salon by Alex Pareene who thinks, Aaron Sorkin is why people hate liberals.
> 
> _Hes a smug, condescending know-it-all who isnt as smart as he thinks he is. His feints toward open-mindedness are transparently phony, he mistakes his opinion for common sense, and hes preachy. Sorkin has spent years fueling the delusional self-regard of well-educated liberals. He might be more responsible than anyone else for the anti-democratic everyone would agree with us if they werent all so stupid attitude of the contemporary progressive movement. And age is not improving him._
> 
> ...
> 
> Why Do People Hate Liberals? | The Daily Banter
> 
> 
> 
> The polls show this is a liberal country.
Click to expand...


Loincloth, So that's why were so fucked up...


----------



## Wyld Kard

*5 Liberal Policies That Backfire and Ruin Lives*

John Hawkins | Aug 06, 2013  

The biggest problem with modern liberalism is that it has devolved into little more than childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues. A liberal picks which policies to support based on whether they make him feel "nice" or "mean" and then he declares a policy to be a moral imperative based on his emotional reaction to it. There's no consideration put into whether the cost of a program is worth the benefits provided or whether the policy ultimately benefits more people than it harms; there's just a wild lurch based on feelings. Unfortunately for liberals, governing in that fashion is not sustainable over the long haul and leads to the sort of disasters we've recently seen in Greece and Detroit. 

Unfortunately for the rest of us, the wheels of history turn slowly and at times, ambiguously, which means bad ideas can take a long time to prove their unworthiness -- so long in fact, that there's often someone trying the same failed idea under a new name by the time the old idea has been discredited. 1) Price controls: Limiting the prices of certain goods like gas, electricity or food seems a kind -hearted thing to do. However, lamentably, it destroys the way the market functions. If the price of a product or service is kept artificially low, it will cause the populace to use more of it than it normally would. When this happens under ordinary circumstances, suppliers spend more money to keep the product coming (They buy surplus stock, set up 2nd and 3rd shifts at their plants, etc., etc.), they raise the price to cover their higher expenses and they wet their beak a bit by taking a little extra profit. On the other hand, if they can't cover the extra expenses because of price controls, they'll still try to sell what they have available, but there is no longer an incentive to use extra resources to meet demand for the product. So, when you see price controls put in effect, prepare yourself, because as sure as night follows day, a shortage is going to eventually occur.

2) *Affirmative Action:* 
In an effort to help black Americans, liberals advocate Affirmative Action. Sadly, this has turned into a particularly detrimental policy for black Americans. First off, every black American now has a question mark over his achievements. Did he deserve them or were they given because of Affirmative Action? This is one of the biggest drivers in the grossly unfair, soft bigotry to low expectations that are all often applied to black Americans in the media. Worse yet, depending on the numbers you believe, somewhere between 60-70% of black Americans drop out of college. Affirmative Action has a lot to do with that because it "helps" black Americans get into a more rigorous college than they may be ready to handle at a young age. As Walter Williams has said, 


"...(B)lack students who are being turned into failures at MIT, if theyd gone to engineering school at the University of Pennsylvania or Cornell, theyd be on the Deans list."That's an awful lot of human potential being wasted in the name of Affirmative Action. 

3) *Rent Control:* 
Everybody needs a place to call home; so keeping rents low seems like a benevolent idea. Also, who wouldn't want a great place to live on the cheap? However, in practice, cities with rent control are the most expensive places in America to rent. That's because housing is a for profit industry. Existing apartments that can't make a profit will close and new builders certainly aren't going to build more space if they can't make a profit on it. If you have a housing glut, it's cheap to find a place to live. If you create an artificial housing shortage via rent control, it creates more homelessness and makes an area less affordable to live in for average families. 

4) *The DDT Ban: *
DDT is a safe, incredibly effective pesticide that was used extensively here in the United States with few negative effects. Sadly, Rachel Carson's junk science book Silent Spring made a lot of wild, unsupported claims about DDT hurting birds that forever stuck in the minds of liberals. The substance was banned worldwide and even after the ban was lifted, liberal foundations, governments, and USAID have applied tremendous pressure to keep poor countries from using it. This is regrettable because DDT was and still is the cheapest and most effective way to kill mosquitoes that spread malaria. It's very difficult to estimate the numbers of people in poor nations that have died because of liberal hatred of DDT, but most estimates seem to at least put it in the tens of millions with another million or so dying each year. There are a lot of dictators whose names we curse that haven't killed as many human beings as liberals have by making sure poor people in South America and Africa can't use DDT to free themselves of the scourge of malaria. 

5) *The Minimum Wage/Living Wage: *What could be wrong with making sure that everyone makes at least a certain minimal amount for any work he does? After all, shouldn't everyone make enough to support a family off his wages? That's a nice idea, but the problem with it is that businesses aren't charities and when you force them to pay employees more per hour than they're worth, the company is probably going to react either by cutting their work force, replacing them with machinery, technology or outsourcing, or by hiring a smaller number of higher quality workers that are worth the money. In other words, minimum wages and living wages create unemployment. A great example of how this works recently happened in D.C. A law was passed targeting Wal-Mart which would have forced the retailer to pay its workers 50% more than the minimum wage. Wal-Mart's response was to cancel the opening of six stores in the area. The liberal argument is that the thousands of people who would have voluntarily chosen to work for Wal-Mart will be better off unemployed. The conservative argument is that they should be allowed to make their own choice about whether the pay, health care, skills, and potential for advancement in the job are worth it.

5 Liberal Policies That Backfire and Ruin Lives - John Hawkins - Page full


----------



## Pogo

Well if it ain't the Joker, back from his reading comprehension course already.

Affirmative Action is not a Liberal idea.  It's a leftist idea. 
_Liberal _is when you believe all men are created equal.  _Leftist _is when you use the government to force it that way.

Start with that.  Let me know when you catch up.


----------



## Wyld Kard

Here ya go Pogo, another article for you to bitch about!  
After all that is what you libtards do is whine, whine, whine, like little bitches. 


*20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer *

John Hawkins | Apr 20, 2013  

"It is not enough for the insecure left to deem a position wrong; if it&#8217;s merely wrong, it needs to be argued about, and it can&#8217;t survive that. It must instead be morally abhorrent, so that the zealot reacts to the toxin of questioning much like a jogger coming across a decomposing body on the side of the road &#8212; it must be internalized that the correct response to such a horror is to retch, and faint, and call the authorities post-haste.

This is how the leftist faith protects itself from the infection of doubt. (Meanwhile, of course, patting itself on the back for being so open-minded&#8230" -- Ace of Spades HQ


"If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn&#8217;t their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why can&#8217;t the argument itself be dismembered rather than the speaker&#8217;s personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?" -- Ann Coulter

Liberalism doesn't convince with logic. It can't, because the policies liberals advocate don't work. So instead, liberals have to use emotion-based ploys and attack the motives of people they disagree with while attempting to keep conservative arguments from being heard at all. Why? Because they have no good answers to questions like these.

*1)* A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?

*2)* If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?

*3)* How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?

*4)* What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that he&#8217;s earned that he should be able to keep? 

*5)* Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes?

*6)* Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it's pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they'd like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?

*7) *If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?

*8)* How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn't doing well because we aren't spending enough money when we're already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year? 

*9)* If Republicans don&#8217;t care about the poor, why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do? 

*10)* Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn't change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we're seeing in Greece or Cyprus?

*11) *Since we "all agree" with the idea that our level of deficit spending is "unsustainable," what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?

*12)* If we change God's definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what's the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be? 

*13)* In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it's feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners? 

*14)* If you win a lawsuit that's filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?

*15)* How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?

*16)* A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What's the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?

*17)* The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we've seen over the last century. Since we can't adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?

*18)* We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn't government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states&#8217; rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?

*19)* If people in the middle class aren't willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don't think it's worth the money, shouldn't we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes? 

*20)* If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don't we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace?

20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer - John Hawkins - Page full


----------



## Pogo

Wildcard said:


> Here ya go Pogo, another article for you to bitch about!
> After all that is what you libtards do is whine, whine, whine, like little bitches.
> 
> 
> *20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer *
> 
> John Hawkins | Apr 20, 2013
> 
> "It is not enough for the insecure left to deem a position wrong; if its merely wrong, it needs to be argued about, and it cant survive that. It must instead be morally abhorrent, so that the zealot reacts to the toxin of questioning much like a jogger coming across a decomposing body on the side of the road  it must be internalized that the correct response to such a horror is to retch, and faint, and call the authorities post-haste.
> 
> This is how the leftist faith protects itself from the infection of doubt. (Meanwhile, of course, patting itself on the back for being so open-minded)" -- Ace of Spades HQ
> 
> 
> "If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldnt their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why cant the argument itself be dismembered rather than the speakers personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?" -- Ann Coulter
> 
> Liberalism doesn't convince with logic. It can't, because the policies liberals advocate don't work. So instead, liberals have to use emotion-based ploys and attack the motives of people they disagree with while attempting to keep conservative arguments from being heard at all. Why? Because they have no good answers to questions like these.
> 
> *1)* A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?
> 
> *2)* If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?
> 
> *3)* How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?
> 
> *4)* What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that hes earned that he should be able to keep?
> 
> *5)* Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes?
> 
> *6)* Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it's pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they'd like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?
> 
> *7) *If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?
> 
> *8)* How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn't doing well because we aren't spending enough money when we're already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?
> 
> *9)* If Republicans dont care about the poor, why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?
> 
> *10)* Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn't change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we're seeing in Greece or Cyprus?
> 
> *11) *Since we "all agree" with the idea that our level of deficit spending is "unsustainable," what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?
> 
> *12)* If we change God's definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what's the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?
> 
> *13)* In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it's feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?
> 
> *14)* If you win a lawsuit that's filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?
> 
> *15)* How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?
> 
> *16)* A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What's the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?
> 
> *17)* The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we've seen over the last century. Since we can't adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?
> 
> *18)* We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn't government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?
> 
> *19)* If people in the middle class aren't willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don't think it's worth the money, shouldn't we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?
> 
> *20)* If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don't we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace?
> 
> 20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer - John Hawkins - Page full



I'm surprised at myself ---- I actually read this whole laundry list.  Even though you're still two behind on your homework.

So John Hawkins --who is apparently an armchair blogger without educational background*-- compiles a list of twenty "points" (in quotes because some of them are just vague specious ideas).  Out of these 20, exactly *one*, count 'em, *1* -- has anything to do with Liberalism.  If you can tell me which one it is we'll move on.

*To quote from your own post: "Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument."  And indeed he did, a whole list of them.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Whats to hate here?

lib·er·al
&#712;lib(&#601r&#601;l/Submit
adjective
1. open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
"they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people"
"liberal citizenship laws"

synonyms:	tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened; More
antonyms:	narrow-minded, bigoted

(in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.
"a liberal democratic state"

synonyms:	progressive, advanced, modern, forward-looking, forward-thinking, progressivist, enlightened, reformist, radical More

antonyms:	reactionary, conservative

of or characteristic of Liberals or a Liberal Party.
adjective: Liberal
(in the UK) of or relating to the Liberal Democrat Party.
adjective: Liberal
"the Liberal leader"

THEOLOGY
regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

2.(of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.

synonyms:	wide-ranging, broad-based, general More

3.(esp. of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact.
"they could have given the 1968 Act a more liberal interpretation"

synonyms:	flexible, broad, loose, rough, free, general, nonliteral, nonspecific, imprecise, vague, indefinite More
antonyms:	strict, to the letter

4.given, used, or occurring in generous amounts.
"liberal amounts of wine had been consumed"

synonyms:	abundant, copious, ample, plentiful, generous, lavish, luxuriant, profuse, considerable, prolific, rich; More
antonyms:	scant

(of a person) giving generously.
"Sam was too liberal with the wine"

synonyms:	generous, openhanded, unsparing, unstinting, ungrudging, lavish, free, munificent, bountiful, beneficent, benevolent, big-hearted, philanthropic, charitable, altruistic, unselfish; More
antonyms:	careful, miserly

noun
noun: liberal;&#8195;plural noun: liberals
1.a person of liberal views.

https://www.google.com/#q=What+is+a+liberal


----------



## Billo_Really

American_Jihad said:


> Loincloth, So that's why were so fucked up...


We're fucked up, because the right has done nothing to help this country for the last 7 years.

You've done a lot of things _to_ the country, but nothing _for_ it.


----------



## Mr. H.

Liberals fantasize about the betterment of total strangers at the expense of still more total strangers, while fighting for protecting and relishing in their own lavishes.


----------



## Wolfsister77

I wish I had lavishes, LOL.


----------



## American_Jihad

Billo_Really said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loincloth, So that's why were so fucked up...
> 
> 
> 
> We're fucked up, because the right has done nothing to help this country for the last 7 years.
> 
> You've done a lot of things _to_ the country, but nothing _for_ it.
Click to expand...








https://www.google.com/search?sourc...nUS324US325&q=are+liberals+destroying+america 


...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wolfsister77 said:


> I wish I had lavishes, LOL.



You have a lavish time for the first two days after the welfare check comes each month...


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I had lavishes, LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a lavish time for the first two days after the welfare check comes each month...
Click to expand...


Welfare sends "checks"?

Thanks for the update... who knew.

 [MENTION=18444]Wolf[/MENTION]sister: ask and ye shall receive...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> Welfare sends "checks"?
> 
> Thanks for the update... who knew.
> 
> [MENTION=18444]Wolf[/MENTION]sister: ask and ye shall receive...



I guess I should have said her EBT gets loaded, then she does....


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare sends "checks"?
> 
> Thanks for the update... who knew.
> 
> [MENTION=18444]Wolf[/MENTION]sister: ask and ye shall receive...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I should have said her EBT gets loaded, then she does....
Click to expand...


Thanks for the clarification.  Good to know we have an expert.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Pogo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I had lavishes, LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a lavish time for the first two days after the welfare check comes each month...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare sends "checks"?
> 
> Thanks for the update... who knew.
> 
> [MENTION=18444]Wolf[/MENTION]sister: ask and ye shall receive...
Click to expand...


You guys have to use the whole name [MENTION=38281]Wolfsister77[/MENTION]-wolf gets a lot of my mentions. 

And thanks, now I'm hungry for lunch.

I know nothing about welfare checks or anything about how that system works but it is so cute to see when people think that's some sort of insult. 

Being poor or struggling and needing assistance sure is something to make fun of in this country. Those people all suck, lets denigrate them.


----------



## Wyld Kard

Pogo said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya go Pogo, another article for you to bitch about!
> After all that is what you libtards do is whine, whine, whine, like little bitches.
> 
> 
> *20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer *
> 
> John Hawkins | Apr 20, 2013
> 
> "It is not enough for the insecure left to deem a position wrong; if its merely wrong, it needs to be argued about, and it cant survive that. It must instead be morally abhorrent, so that the zealot reacts to the toxin of questioning much like a jogger coming across a decomposing body on the side of the road  it must be internalized that the correct response to such a horror is to retch, and faint, and call the authorities post-haste.
> 
> This is how the leftist faith protects itself from the infection of doubt. (Meanwhile, of course, patting itself on the back for being so open-minded)" -- Ace of Spades HQ
> 
> 
> "If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldnt their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why cant the argument itself be dismembered rather than the speakers personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?" -- Ann Coulter
> 
> Liberalism doesn't convince with logic. It can't, because the policies liberals advocate don't work. So instead, liberals have to use emotion-based ploys and attack the motives of people they disagree with while attempting to keep conservative arguments from being heard at all. Why? Because they have no good answers to questions like these.
> 
> *1)* A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?
> 
> *2)* If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?
> 
> *3)* How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?
> 
> *4)* What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that hes earned that he should be able to keep?
> 
> *5)* Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes?
> 
> *6)* Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it's pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they'd like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?
> 
> *7) *If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?
> 
> *8)* How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn't doing well because we aren't spending enough money when we're already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?
> 
> *9)* If Republicans dont care about the poor, why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?
> 
> *10)* Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn't change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we're seeing in Greece or Cyprus?
> 
> *11) *Since we "all agree" with the idea that our level of deficit spending is "unsustainable," what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?
> 
> *12)* If we change God's definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what's the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?
> 
> *13)* In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it's feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?
> 
> *14)* If you win a lawsuit that's filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?
> 
> *15)* How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?
> 
> *16)* A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What's the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?
> 
> *17)* The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we've seen over the last century. Since we can't adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?
> 
> *18)* We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn't government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?
> 
> *19)* If people in the middle class aren't willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don't think it's worth the money, shouldn't we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?
> 
> *20)* If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don't we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace?
> 
> 20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer - John Hawkins - Page full
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised at myself ---- I actually read this whole laundry list.  Even though you're still two behind on your homework.
> 
> So John Hawkins --who is apparently an armchair blogger without educational background*-- compiles a list of twenty "points" (in quotes because some of them are just vague specious ideas).  Out of these 20, exactly *one*, count 'em, *1* -- has anything to do with Liberalism.  If you can tell me which one it is we'll move on.
> 
> *To quote from your own post: "Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument."  And indeed he did, a whole list of them.
Click to expand...


Thank you for proving the article "_20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer_" correct.  After all, you are a liberal and you couldn't even answer a single question, not surprising.  Instead, you made excuses, something you libtards enjoy doing.


----------



## Pogo

Wildcard said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya go Pogo, another article for you to bitch about!
> After all that is what you libtards do is whine, whine, whine, like little bitches.
> 
> 
> *20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer *
> 
> John Hawkins | Apr 20, 2013
> 
> "It is not enough for the insecure left to deem a position wrong; if its merely wrong, it needs to be argued about, and it cant survive that. It must instead be morally abhorrent, so that the zealot reacts to the toxin of questioning much like a jogger coming across a decomposing body on the side of the road  it must be internalized that the correct response to such a horror is to retch, and faint, and call the authorities post-haste.
> 
> This is how the leftist faith protects itself from the infection of doubt. (Meanwhile, of course, patting itself on the back for being so open-minded)" -- Ace of Spades HQ
> 
> 
> "If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldnt their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why cant the argument itself be dismembered rather than the speakers personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?" -- Ann Coulter
> 
> Liberalism doesn't convince with logic. It can't, because the policies liberals advocate don't work. So instead, liberals have to use emotion-based ploys and attack the motives of people they disagree with while attempting to keep conservative arguments from being heard at all. Why? Because they have no good answers to questions like these.
> 
> *1)* A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?
> 
> *2)* If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?
> 
> *3)* How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?
> 
> *4)* What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that hes earned that he should be able to keep?
> 
> *5)* Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes?
> 
> *6)* Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it's pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they'd like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?
> 
> *7) *If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?
> 
> *8)* How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn't doing well because we aren't spending enough money when we're already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?
> 
> *9)* If Republicans dont care about the poor, why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?
> 
> *10)* Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn't change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we're seeing in Greece or Cyprus?
> 
> *11) *Since we "all agree" with the idea that our level of deficit spending is "unsustainable," what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?
> 
> *12)* If we change God's definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what's the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?
> 
> *13)* In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it's feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?
> 
> *14)* If you win a lawsuit that's filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?
> 
> *15)* How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?
> 
> *16)* A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What's the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?
> 
> *17)* The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we've seen over the last century. Since we can't adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?
> 
> *18)* We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn't government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?
> 
> *19)* If people in the middle class aren't willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don't think it's worth the money, shouldn't we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?
> 
> *20)* If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don't we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace?
> 
> 20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer - John Hawkins - Page full
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised at myself ---- I actually read this whole laundry list.  Even though you're still two behind on your homework.
> 
> So John Hawkins --who is apparently an armchair blogger without educational background*-- compiles a list of twenty "points" (in quotes because some of them are just vague specious ideas).  Out of these 20, exactly *one*, count 'em, *1* -- has anything to do with Liberalism.  If you can tell me which one it is we'll move on.
> 
> *To quote from your own post: "Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument."  And indeed he did, a whole list of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving the article "_20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer_" correct.  After all, you are a liberal and you couldn't even answer a single question, not surprising.  Instead, you made excuses, something you libtards enjoy doing.
Click to expand...


Actually I answered them all.  I just haven't published it.  I've been waiting on you.

Once more, out of those twenty, ONE has anything to do with Liberalism.  Which one is it?

I strongly suspect you have no clue in the world.


----------



## Mojo2

Old Rocks said:


> Now Mathew, you really think that the economic theories that resulted in the First Great Republican Depression were not destructive? And that the deconstruction of the regulations that were put into place because of that Depression, leading up to October, 2008, and a very near brush with the Second Great Republican Depression, were not destuctive?



I think the jury is still out on who gets the "credit" for the economic calamity of 08.

And that I need to point this out to you, assuming you are a fair and earnest poster, (a "plain dealer" if you will allow me a bit of American heritage lingo), a man of character who values the truth and integrity in others and who just happens to be a Liberal is typical of Liberals.

You are politically aware and yet I had to inform you that George W. Bush and/or members of his administration warned about the dangers of Fannie And Freddy's lax lending practices from early in his administration until near the end as the crisis began to hit.

In fact...

*"Bushco" made more than thirty warnings about the possibility of an economic crises if policies and practices weren't changed!!*

And you know what the leading Liberals in Congress said in response to these warnings?

Watch this...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM]Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube[/ame]

What were those warning signs? Who raised them? And who disputed them?

So, tell me again, after having watched that video, 'who was responsible for the meltdown?'

That's one thing that irks me about libs. That even a great guy like you didn't know this and you have been making important decisions based on this faulty info for many years now. Decisions based on myths and propaganda and lies.

And the folks responsible for keeping you in the dark about all of this, and God knows what else, have profited by their deception and you if you are a typical Liberal will just refuse to see it.

And I get the impression it isn't always a conscious choice not to believe the truth and then change course. I sometimes believe that some Libs are mentally, physically, biologically or psychologically incapable of controlling themselves...of making themselves do what is right after they have made their emotion based decisions. 

So instead they double down on defending these jerks and con men who have used them like two bit ho's..

And, again, if you respond to my post by defending them once again, you'll have a perfect example of why I can't stand Liberals.

Okay.

Now what?


----------



## Pogo

Mojo: methiinks you're conflating Liberals and "Democrats".  The latter is a party, the former a philosophy.
As far as warnings, dunno about yours but I do know the Clintons warned the Bush Admin about al Qaeda, so.... it's all very convenient to declare that "when my guy was in office your Congress fucked things up" and at the same time declare "when your guy was in office he fucked things up while my Congress tried to fix it".  That double-standard argument is always a wash.
____________
Still waiting, Jokeroo.  I've got the whole thing laid out, all 20... and you can't answer one?


----------



## Mojo2

Pogo said:


> Mojo: methiinks you're conflating Liberals and "Democrats".  The latter is a party, the former a philosophy.
> As far as warnings, dunno about yours but I do know the Clintons warned the Bush Admin about al Qaeda, so.... it's all very convenient to declare that "when my guy was in office your Congress fucked things up" and at the same time declare "when your guy was in office he fucked things up while my Congress tried to fix it".  That double-standard argument is always a wash.
> ____________
> Still waiting, Jokeroo.  I've got the whole thing laid out, all 20... and you can't answer one?



Sorry, Floyd. (Loved Floyd the Barber!) But you just demonstrated one more typically Liberal tendency.

Tit 4 Tat.

When you do it to me I'll find some way to try to do the same to you so as to engineer the "wash" you so aptly described.

Generally speaking, this immature tendency is identifiably Liberal. Another group which uses this technique quite often are Muslim posters masquerading as WASPs or young, Western, low info citizens.

And you cain't help yourselves. You are just wired with a greater helping of feminine wiring at birth. Thiis makes you more impulsive, less rational.

And that's one reason Conservatives so often act in terms of black and white, cut and dried certainty.

It's because We have thought about things rationally, generally speaking, before you can come up with your emotion based response to whatever might be at issue. And we'll have a better response because it would have been THOUGHT through, rationally instead of being felt through, emotionally.

So, we know your ideas are too often stupid. And yet you believe you get to have as much say on a matter as anyone else.

Why do you believe thiis is how things should be?

Because everyone is entitled to their own opinion! a typical Lib might say.

And yes, you are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts!

Yet, that's the way Libs believe and it is aggravating as heck to know you know and know they don't know and yet they refuse to defer to your knowledge.

Especially when something REALLY important or time sensitive is at stake.

Because no matter the crisis, no matter the issue at stake, no matter how important it is, you can count on a silly Liberal getting all butthurt over some perceived (and often imaginary) slight just when the time calls for smart, well informed, decisive action and there they'll be intentionally slowing things down or even bringing things to a halt until their asses are sufficiently slathered.

I could go on, but suffice to say, I have little use for Libs doing the heavy lifting in our government.

We are STILL trying to undo the unintended consequences of LBJ's Great Society in 1967 or so.

I'll rant again later.


----------



## Pogo

Mojo2 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo: methiinks you're conflating Liberals and "Democrats".  The latter is a party, the former a philosophy.
> As far as warnings, dunno about yours but I do know the Clintons warned the Bush Admin about al Qaeda, so.... it's all very convenient to declare that "when my guy was in office your Congress fucked things up" and at the same time declare "when your guy was in office he fucked things up while my Congress tried to fix it".  That double-standard argument is always a wash.
> ____________
> Still waiting, Jokeroo.  I've got the whole thing laid out, all 20... and you can't answer one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Floyd. (Loved Floyd the Barber!) But you just demonstrated one more typically Liberal tendency.
> 
> Tit 4 Tat.
> 
> When you do it to me I'll find some way to try to do the same to you so as to engineer the "wash" you so aptly described.
> 
> Generally speaking, this immature tendency is identifiably Liberal. Another group which uses this technique quite often are Muslim posters masquerading as WASPs or young, Western, low info citizens.
> 
> And you cain't help yourselves. You are just wired with a greater helping of feminine wiring at birth. Thiis makes you more impulsive, less rational.
> 
> And that's one reason Conservatives so often act in terms of black and white, cut and dried certainty.
> 
> It's because We have thought about things rationally, generally speaking, before you can come up with your emotion based response to whatever might be at issue. And we'll have a better response because it would have been THOUGHT through, rationally instead of being felt through, emotionally.
> 
> So, we know your ideas are too often stupid. And yet you believe you get to have as much say on a matter as anyone else.
> 
> Why do you believe thiis is how things should be?
> 
> Because everyone is entitled to their own opinion! a typical Lib might say.
> 
> And yes, you are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts!
> 
> Yet, that's the way Libs believe and it is aggravating as heck to know you know and know they don't know and yet they refuse to defer to your knowledge.
> 
> Especially when something REALLY important or time sensitive is at stake.
> 
> Because no matter the crisis, no matter the issue at stake, no matter how important it is, you can count on a silly Liberal getting all butthurt over some perceived (and often imaginary) slight just when the time calls for smart, well informed, decisive action and there they'll be intentionally slowing things down or even bringing things to a halt until their asses are sufficiently slathered.
> 
> I could go on, but suffice to say, I have little use for Libs doing the heavy lifting in our government.
> 
> We are STILL trying to undo the unintended consequences of LBJ's Great Society in 1967 or so.
> 
> I'll rant again later.
Click to expand...


Ah, so you're one of these cretins who can't see past his own prefab labels.  That's why the entire post sailed over your head.
Fuck that onanism shit.  This is a message board.  That means dialogue.
Too bad, so sad.  Off you go to Ignoreland then.  Have fun with your mirror.


----------



## Mojo2

Pogo said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo: methiinks you're conflating Liberals and "Democrats".  The latter is a party, the former a philosophy.
> As far as warnings, dunno about yours but I do know the Clintons warned the Bush Admin about al Qaeda, so.... it's all very convenient to declare that "when my guy was in office your Congress fucked things up" and at the same time declare "when your guy was in office he fucked things up while my Congress tried to fix it".  That double-standard argument is always a wash.
> ____________
> Still waiting, Jokeroo.  I've got the whole thing laid out, all 20... and you can't answer one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Floyd. (Loved Floyd the Barber!) But you just demonstrated one more typically Liberal tendency.
> 
> Tit 4 Tat.
> 
> When you do it to me I'll find some way to try to do the same to you so as to engineer the "wash" you so aptly described.
> 
> Generally speaking, this immature tendency is identifiably Liberal. Another group which uses this technique quite often are Muslim posters masquerading as WASPs or young, Western, low info citizens.
> 
> And you cain't help yourselves. You are just wired with a greater helping of feminine wiring at birth. Thiis makes you more impulsive, less rational.
> 
> And that's one reason Conservatives so often act in terms of black and white, cut and dried certainty.
> 
> It's because We have thought about things rationally, generally speaking, before you can come up with your emotion based response to whatever might be at issue. And we'll have a better response because it would have been THOUGHT through, rationally instead of being felt through, emotionally.
> 
> So, we know your ideas are too often stupid. And yet you believe you get to have as much say on a matter as anyone else.
> 
> Why do you believe thiis is how things should be?
> 
> Because everyone is entitled to their own opinion! a typical Lib might say.
> 
> And yes, you are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts!
> 
> Yet, that's the way Libs believe and it is aggravating as heck to know you know and know they don't know and yet they refuse to defer to your knowledge.
> 
> Especially when something REALLY important or time sensitive is at stake.
> 
> Because no matter the crisis, no matter the issue at stake, no matter how important it is, you can count on a silly Liberal getting all butthurt over some perceived (and often imaginary) slight just when the time calls for smart, well informed, decisive action and there they'll be intentionally slowing things down or even bringing things to a halt until their asses are sufficiently slathered.
> 
> I could go on, but suffice to say, I have little use for Libs doing the heavy lifting in our government.
> 
> We are STILL trying to undo the unintended consequences of LBJ's Great Society in 1967 or so.
> 
> I'll rant again later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so you're one of these cretins who can't see past his own prefab labels.  That's why the entire post sailed over your head.
> Fuck that onanism shit.  This is a message board.  That means dialogue.
> Too bad, so sad.  *Off you go to Ignoreland then.*  Have fun with your mirror.
Click to expand...



Let's all join in and say, *"How typically Liberal!"*


----------



## Wolfsister77

Mojo2 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Floyd. (Loved Floyd the Barber!) But you just demonstrated one more typically Liberal tendency.
> 
> Tit 4 Tat.
> 
> When you do it to me I'll find some way to try to do the same to you so as to engineer the "wash" you so aptly described.
> 
> Generally speaking, this immature tendency is identifiably Liberal. Another group which uses this technique quite often are Muslim posters masquerading as WASPs or young, Western, low info citizens.
> 
> And you cain't help yourselves. You are just wired with a greater helping of feminine wiring at birth. Thiis makes you more impulsive, less rational.
> 
> And that's one reason Conservatives so often act in terms of black and white, cut and dried certainty.
> 
> It's because We have thought about things rationally, generally speaking, before you can come up with your emotion based response to whatever might be at issue. And we'll have a better response because it would have been THOUGHT through, rationally instead of being felt through, emotionally.
> 
> So, we know your ideas are too often stupid. And yet you believe you get to have as much say on a matter as anyone else.
> 
> Why do you believe thiis is how things should be?
> 
> Because everyone is entitled to their own opinion! a typical Lib might say.
> 
> And yes, you are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts!
> 
> Yet, that's the way Libs believe and it is aggravating as heck to know you know and know they don't know and yet they refuse to defer to your knowledge.
> 
> Especially when something REALLY important or time sensitive is at stake.
> 
> Because no matter the crisis, no matter the issue at stake, no matter how important it is, you can count on a silly Liberal getting all butthurt over some perceived (and often imaginary) slight just when the time calls for smart, well informed, decisive action and there they'll be intentionally slowing things down or even bringing things to a halt until their asses are sufficiently slathered.
> 
> I could go on, but suffice to say, I have little use for Libs doing the heavy lifting in our government.
> 
> We are STILL trying to undo the unintended consequences of LBJ's Great Society in 1967 or so.
> 
> I'll rant again later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you're one of these cretins who can't see past his own prefab labels.  That's why the entire post sailed over your head.
> Fuck that onanism shit.  This is a message board.  That means dialogue.
> Too bad, so sad.  *Off you go to Ignoreland then.*  Have fun with your mirror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's all join in and say, *"How typically Liberal!"*
Click to expand...


Let's not and call it what it really is. You being a partisan hack. You can't think for yourself. You think you know what you are talking about but really don't have a clue. And you wouldn't know facts if they were right in front of your face because to you only one perspective has any relevance.

One sided people who label everyone else falsely and then pretend they won some sort of victory when the person doesn't want to deal with you, are boring as hell.

Think outside the box for once or just go talk to folks who think like you, there are plenty of them here. And some of them debate with an open mind. Yours is already closed. Closed and locked and buried in the desert somewhere where only people like Rush Limbaugh have the key.

Good luck going through life like that.


----------



## Pogo

Wolfsister77 said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you're one of these cretins who can't see past his own prefab labels.  That's why the entire post sailed over your head.
> Fuck that onanism shit.  This is a message board.  That means dialogue.
> Too bad, so sad.  *Off you go to Ignoreland then.*  Have fun with your mirror.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's all join in and say, *"How typically Liberal!"*
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not and call it what it really is. You being a partisan hack. You can't think for yourself. You think you know what you are talking about but really don't have a clue. And you wouldn't know facts if they were right in front of your face because to you only one perspective has any relevance.
> 
> One sided people who label everyone else falsely and then pretend they won some sort of victory when the person doesn't want to deal with you, are boring as hell.
> 
> Think outside the box for once or just go talk to folks who think like you, there are plenty of them here. And some of them debate with an open mind. Yours is already closed. Closed and locked and buried in the desert somewhere where only people like Rush Limbaugh have the key.
> 
> Good luck going through life like that.
Click to expand...


Sometimes it doesn't take long at all to peg these bozos.  They'll out themselves, as here.
Which is a good thing in a way because idiots like this are what drag threads down in an endless and mindless echo of "yammer yammer libtard yammer yammer" that succeeds only in generating a cacophony of rhetorical pink noise.


----------



## Mr. H.

I hate Liberals because they like me. 

Until they know me. 

Some of my best of friends suddenly discover that I don't THINK as they do. I don't SUBSCRIBE to their ideologies. And I don't CONFORM to their agenda. 

Bye-bye little bird-brained fuckers.


----------



## Mojo2

Pogo said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's all join in and say, *"How typically Liberal!"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not and call it what it really is. You being a partisan hack. You can't think for yourself. You think you know what you are talking about but really don't have a clue. And you wouldn't know facts if they were right in front of your face because to you only one perspective has any relevance.
> 
> One sided people who label everyone else falsely and then pretend they won some sort of victory when the person doesn't want to deal with you, are boring as hell.
> 
> Think outside the box for once or just go talk to folks who think like you, there are plenty of them here. And some of them debate with an open mind. Yours is already closed. Closed and locked and buried in the desert somewhere where only people like Rush Limbaugh have the key.
> 
> Good luck going through life like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes it doesn't take long at all to peg these bozos.  They'll out themselves, as here.
> Which is a good thing in a way because idiots like this are what drag threads down in an endless and mindless echo of "yammer yammer libtard yammer yammer" that succeeds only in generating a cacophony of rhetorical pink noise.
Click to expand...


Hey, Floyd!

You came back!


----------



## Mojo2

Wolfsister77 said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you're one of these cretins who can't see past his own prefab labels.  That's why the entire post sailed over your head.
> Fuck that onanism shit.  This is a message board.  That means dialogue.
> Too bad, so sad.  *Off you go to Ignoreland then.*  Have fun with your mirror.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's all join in and say, *"How typically Liberal!"*
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not and call it what it really is. You being a partisan hack. You can't think for yourself. You think you know what you are talking about but really don't have a clue. And you wouldn't know facts if they were right in front of your face because to you only one perspective has any relevance.
> 
> One sided people who label everyone else falsely and then pretend they won some sort of victory when the person doesn't want to deal with you, are boring as hell.
> 
> Think outside the box for once or just go talk to folks who think like you, there are plenty of them here. And some of them debate with an open mind. Yours is already closed. Closed and locked and buried in the desert somewhere where only people like Rush Limbaugh have the key.
> 
> Good luck going through life like that.
Click to expand...


Thank you. I need all the luck I can get!


----------



## Mojo2

American_Jihad said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loincloth, So that's why were so fucked up...
> 
> 
> 
> We're fucked up, because the right has done nothing to help this country for the last 7 years.
> 
> You've done a lot of things _to_ the country, but nothing _for_ it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?sourc...nUS324US325&q=are+liberals+destroying+america
> 
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


You have a way with words!


----------



## Wolfsister77

Mr. H. said:


> I hate Liberals because they like me.
> 
> Until they know me.
> 
> Some of my best of friends suddenly discover that I don't THINK as they do. I don't SUBSCRIBE to their ideologies. And I don't CONFORM to their agenda.
> 
> Bye-bye little bird-brained fuckers.



I feel the same way about anyone that bases whether or not they like a person based only on their political beliefs. You miss out on getting to know some decent people. I can't think of the exact article right now but I read somewhere during the 2012 election that this lady getting married uninvited a good friend of hers from the wedding and wouldn't speak to her anymore when she found out who she was voting for. C'mon now folks. Politics is only so important. You can't just surround yourself with like minded people.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Pogo said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's all join in and say, *"How typically Liberal!"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not and call it what it really is. You being a partisan hack. You can't think for yourself. You think you know what you are talking about but really don't have a clue. And you wouldn't know facts if they were right in front of your face because to you only one perspective has any relevance.
> 
> One sided people who label everyone else falsely and then pretend they won some sort of victory when the person doesn't want to deal with you, are boring as hell.
> 
> Think outside the box for once or just go talk to folks who think like you, there are plenty of them here. And some of them debate with an open mind. Yours is already closed. Closed and locked and buried in the desert somewhere where only people like Rush Limbaugh have the key.
> 
> Good luck going through life like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes it doesn't take long at all to peg these bozos.  They'll out themselves, as here.
> Which is a good thing in a way because idiots like this are what drag threads down in an endless and mindless echo of "yammer yammer libtard yammer yammer" that succeeds only in generating a cacophony of rhetorical pink noise.
Click to expand...


I agree and unfortunately, it's a waste of time dealing with such strict partisans that immediately discount anyone who doesn't think like them. But they are good with the partisan poo flinging in the threads. Lets see all Liberals............Obama..............It's boring.


----------



## Pogo

Wolfsister77 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate Liberals because they like me.
> 
> Until they know me.
> 
> Some of my best of friends suddenly discover that I don't THINK as they do. I don't SUBSCRIBE to their ideologies. And I don't CONFORM to their agenda.
> 
> Bye-bye little bird-brained fuckers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the same way about anyone that bases whether or not they like a person based only on their political beliefs. You miss out on getting to know some decent people. I can't think of the exact article right now but I read somewhere during the 2012 election that this lady getting married uninvited a good friend of hers from the wedding and wouldn't speak to her anymore when she found out who she was voting for. C'mon now folks. Politics is only so important. You can't just surround yourself with like minded people.
Click to expand...


Even worse are the wackos who stick labels on others, even if based on nothing, and then extrapolate all sorts of sordid personality traits on people they've never met -- like Bozo2 here.  That's how I spell Loser.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> Ah, so you're one of these cretins who can't see past his own prefab labels.  That's why the entire post sailed over your head.
> Fuck that onanism shit.  This is a message board.  That means dialogue.
> Too bad, so sad.  Off you go to Ignoreland then.  Have fun with your mirror.



He crushes you with logic and reason, and you put him on ignore?

Fear much?


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you're one of these cretins who can't see past his own prefab labels.  That's why the entire post sailed over your head.
> Fuck that onanism shit.  This is a message board.  That means dialogue.
> Too bad, so sad.  Off you go to Ignoreland then.  Have fun with your mirror.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He crushes you with logic and reason, and you put him on ignore?
> 
> Fear much?
Click to expand...


You wish, Pothead   Btw learn the subtle difference between "logic and reason" versus "blanket ad hominem".  I know they look a lot alike to you.

I didn't even address his issue; I just noted he's getting into the morass of making arguments with moving goalposts, to which he responded by dropping into blanket ad hominem on people he just met ten minutes ago.  That tells me he's not here for debate, so I'm not going to waste my time.  
I thought I just said all this.  Read much?

I mean you do the same thing, but you at least were here a while before you became a rhetorical degenerate... as far as I know anyway.

Actually I was just brushing that out of the way while I wait for the Joker to answer his four-day-old question.  He was, after all, here first.


----------



## Wolfsister77

mojo started this shit in his intro thread


----------



## mamooth

Why do the liberal-hating kooks think that crying at people is going to win them converts? They've already got a lock on the whiner-American demographic. There simply aren't any new voters to be gained there.


----------



## NLT

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Read any post by the following
Rderp
Rightwinger
Luddy
Franco
Sallow
Luiisa
BDBOOP
Bodey
Jake Starkey
Wry Catcher
Plasma Balls
Sarah G
Black Label
Noomi
just to name a few, and that will answer your question on why people hate liberals.


----------



## Pogo

NLT said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read any post by the following
> Rderp
> Rightwinger
> Luddy
> Franco
> Sallow
> Luiisa
> BDBOOP
> Bodey
> Jake Starkey
> Wry Catcher
> Plasma Balls
> Sarah G
> Black Label
> Noomi
> just to name a few, and that will answer your question on why people hate liberals.
Click to expand...


All you did here was to restate the question.
Nanoseconds of thought went into this post, I can tell.  Because corralling a group of people and declaring "everything these guys say is stupid" is obviously deep deductive reasoning.

Rather than restate the OP question we could raise a new one: why do intellectual sloths fall on blanket statements?  Does their power of self-delusion enable them to actually not mind looking this stupid?  Discuss.


----------



## Foxfyre

Stepping on soap box. . . .

Reading over the last couple of pages on this thread--no I haven't read the whole thing because there's only so much nonsense a reasonable person can tolerate--I conclude that there is a LOT of nonsense and non sequitur demonstrated here from both sides.

The OP asked a simple question:  Why do people hate liberals.  The question, of course, is in itself non sequitur since so few people do hate liberals.  I certainly don't.   What I wanted to discuss is why do people hate LIBERALISM as it is most often defined in America today.

Instead we have had mostly a flame thread focused on individuals and ad hominem that is not useful to the discussion.  Both sides have been guilty of that.  You have one member who focuses almost entirely on the technical definition of 'liberal' instead of the intent of the thread and will not acknowledge that definitions change with common usage.  You have other members who don't seem to remember what the thread topic was about.  And still others, both left and right, who post insulting one liners or the same old tired characterizations that simply won't hold up in court.

*In my opiinion, LIBERALISM, as it is most often understood and defined in America these days, has been detrimental to the United States in that it has created a cultural change that makes us a far weaker, less capable people all too willing to look for a big sugar daddy to accomplish what we no longer have the will to do for ourselves.   And that's why I hate it.*

I wonder if anybody would be wiling to discuss that?

I don't hate anybody, much less somebody because he or she is a liberal.

Steps off soapbox. . . .


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Stepping on soap box. . . .
> 
> Reading over the last couple of pages on this thread--no I haven't read the whole thing because there's only so much nonsense a reasonable person can tolerate--I conclude that there is a LOT of nonsense and non sequitur demonstrated here from both sides.
> 
> The OP asked a simple question:  Why do people hate liberals.  The question, of course, is in itself non sequitur since so few people do hate liberals.  I certainly don't.   What I wanted to discuss is why do people hate LIBERALISM as it is most often defined in America today.
> 
> Instead we have had mostly a flame thread focused on individuals and ad hominem that is not useful to the discussion.  Both sides have been guilty of that.  You have one member who focuses almost entirely on the technical definition of 'liberal' instead of the intent of the thread and will not acknowledge that definitions change with common usage.  You have other members who don't seem to remember what the thread topic was about.  And still others, both left and right, who post insulting one liners or the same old tired characterizations that simply won't hold up in court.
> 
> *In my opiinion, LIBERALISM, as it is most often understood and defined in America these days, has been detrimental to the United States in that it has created a cultural change that makes us a far weaker, less capable people all too willing to look for a big sugar daddy to accomplish what we no longer have the will to do for ourselves.   And that's why I hate it.*
> 
> I wonder if anybody would be wiling to discuss that?
> 
> I don't hate anybody, much less somebody because he or she is a liberal.
> 
> Steps off soapbox. . . .



That would be me I assume.  And I don't think the topic, whether Liberals the people or Liberalism the philosophy, CAN advance absent a working definition.  You can't run the train service without time zones, so to speak.  If we all mean something different there can be no comparisons.  The last few blanket ad hominae are examples of that.

Love ya Foxy, welcome back.


----------



## Mojo2

Wolfsister77 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not and call it what it really is. You being a partisan hack. You can't think for yourself. You think you know what you are talking about but really don't have a clue. And you wouldn't know facts if they were right in front of your face because to you only one perspective has any relevance.
> 
> One sided people who label everyone else falsely and then pretend they won some sort of victory when the person doesn't want to deal with you, are boring as hell.
> 
> Think outside the box for once or just go talk to folks who think like you, there are plenty of them here. And some of them debate with an open mind. Yours is already closed. Closed and locked and buried in the desert somewhere where only people like Rush Limbaugh have the key.
> 
> Good luck going through life like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it doesn't take long at all to peg these bozos.  They'll out themselves, as here.
> Which is a good thing in a way because idiots like this are what drag threads down in an endless and mindless echo of "yammer yammer libtard yammer yammer" that succeeds only in generating a cacophony of rhetorical pink noise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree and unfortunately, it's a waste of time dealing with such strict partisans that immediately discount anyone who doesn't think like them. But they are good with the partisan poo flinging in the threads. Lets see all Liberals............Obama..............It's boring.
Click to expand...


Oh, I think Lib girls are dreamy. When I was a young stud one of my BESTEST friends was a raven haired beauty who had a venomous hatred for Reagan like I had never before seen or heard! She thought the $$ spent on his Secret Service detail was an outrage. She thought he shouldn't have had ANY protection at all!

Well, I can say when it came to protection she was no hypocrite.

My dear sexy, Liberal friend who appeared normal in all other respects, seemed to get an abortion every year whether she needed it or not. (Little humor there.) And that is when I began practicing safe sex all the time.

She taught me things in bed I had never before dreamed of!

And my family, as you might imagine ( I am a Negro as are all of my family) are virtually all Liberals. And, aside from the normal dysfunction experienced by any family, I love them all.

I have not stopped watching MOST Liberal performers in the movies and TV.

One exception, however, is Julia Louis-Dreyfus.

Lusted after her when she was featured on SNL. Loved her as Elaine on Seinfeld. Although, I had to consciously bite my tongue in tolerating her character's thrill at discovering her date was a 'real life Communist' in one episode. I chalked it up to fictional TV sitcom plotting. But I didn't like it that she found it exciting to be dating a Commie. In another episode she went ape-crap crazy when she discovered Puddy was a Christian. I was getting the picture. But, I could still separate her from her character and enjoy her artistry.

Then, she was in Old Christine-New Christine and in one episode her son spent the weekend with her ex and his new wife (New Christine) and when she found out they'd taken the boy to Church services she went ape-crap. I swore off of her forever then. Although I did make an exception when she started to warm up to Blair Underwood. I was reminded of my relationship with my red headed former ballerina. Did I forget to mention earlier that she once danced with the ABT? Sorry, my bad!

Anyway, I like Liberal girls. But I don't want them making decisions about our government unless it's in the role of providing leavening to the typically dull and unimaginative Conservative approach to things. A little flavoring and coloring and decoration and perfoming and drama and theatrics in government CAN be a good thing IN SMALL DOSES. And infrequently. And in matters that are not life and death crucial.

And, one more thing.

I hope some of the Libs on this board will come forth and defend my reputation about being fair and reasonable with Libs who love America. They can see from some of my actual posts here that I am warm and brotherly towards any Lib just so long as they LOVE OUR COUNTRY.

Real patriotism makes up for a great deal of the sins of Liberalitis in my book.

There. I hope your future posts reflect this new info.


----------



## NLT

Pogo said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read any post by the following
> Rderp
> Rightwinger
> Luddy
> Franco
> Sallow
> Luiisa
> BDBOOP
> Bodey
> Jake Starkey
> Wry Catcher
> Plasma Balls
> Sarah G
> Black Label
> Noomi
> just to name a few, and that will answer your question on why people hate liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you did here was to restate the question.
> Nanoseconds of thought went into this post, I can tell.  Because corralling a group of people and declaring "everything these guys say is stupid" is obviously deep deductive reasoning.
> 
> Rather than restate the OP question we could raise a new one: why do intellectual sloths fall on blanket statements?  Does their power of self-delusion enable them to actually not mind looking this stupid?  Discuss.
Click to expand...




> Read any post by the following
> Rderp
> Rightwinger
> Luddy
> Franco
> Sallow
> Luiisa
> BDBOOP
> Bodey
> Jake Starkey
> Wry Catcher
> Plasma Balls
> Sarah G
> Black Label
> Noomi
> *POGO*
> just to name a few, and that will answer your question on why people hate liberals



FIXED


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stepping on soap box. . . .
> 
> Reading over the last couple of pages on this thread--no I haven't read the whole thing because there's only so much nonsense a reasonable person can tolerate--I conclude that there is a LOT of nonsense and non sequitur demonstrated here from both sides.
> 
> The OP asked a simple question:  Why do people hate liberals.  The question, of course, is in itself non sequitur since so few people do hate liberals.  I certainly don't.   What I wanted to discuss is why do people hate LIBERALISM as it is most often defined in America today.
> 
> Instead we have had mostly a flame thread focused on individuals and ad hominem that is not useful to the discussion.  Both sides have been guilty of that.  You have one member who focuses almost entirely on the technical definition of 'liberal' instead of the intent of the thread and will not acknowledge that definitions change with common usage.  You have other members who don't seem to remember what the thread topic was about.  And still others, both left and right, who post insulting one liners or the same old tired characterizations that simply won't hold up in court.
> 
> *In my opiinion, LIBERALISM, as it is most often understood and defined in America these days, has been detrimental to the United States in that it has created a cultural change that makes us a far weaker, less capable people all too willing to look for a big sugar daddy to accomplish what we no longer have the will to do for ourselves.   And that's why I hate it.*
> 
> I wonder if anybody would be wiling to discuss that?
> 
> I don't hate anybody, much less somebody because he or she is a liberal.
> 
> Steps off soapbox. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be me I assume.  And I don't think the topic, whether Liberals the people or Liberalism the philosophy, CAN advance absent a working definition.  You can't run the train service without time zones, so to speak.  If we all mean something different there can be no comparisons.  The last few blanket ad hominae are examples of that.
> 
> Love ya Foxy, welcome back.
Click to expand...


Yes, the discussion CAN proceed based on the people's perceptions of what something is because, after all, that is the working definition.  

For me a modern American liberal is one who is comfortable with and actually promotes more and more government participation over all aspects of our lives coupled with a notion that their point of view is the only compassionate or caring one.  They really do believe that they, as a group,are nicer, more intelligent, more commendable people than are those who do not share their views.  And more importantly, they do not trust their fellow man to do the right thing and look to government to require him/her to do the right thing that they see as right.  And of course they see a left leaning government as the only entity capable of bringing about a better society.

Love you too.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stepping on soap box. . . .
> 
> Reading over the last couple of pages on this thread--no I haven't read the whole thing because there's only so much nonsense a reasonable person can tolerate--I conclude that there is a LOT of nonsense and non sequitur demonstrated here from both sides.
> 
> The OP asked a simple question:  Why do people hate liberals.  The question, of course, is in itself non sequitur since so few people do hate liberals.  I certainly don't.   What I wanted to discuss is why do people hate LIBERALISM as it is most often defined in America today.
> 
> Instead we have had mostly a flame thread focused on individuals and ad hominem that is not useful to the discussion.  Both sides have been guilty of that.  You have one member who focuses almost entirely on the technical definition of 'liberal' instead of the intent of the thread and will not acknowledge that definitions change with common usage.  You have other members who don't seem to remember what the thread topic was about.  And still others, both left and right, who post insulting one liners or the same old tired characterizations that simply won't hold up in court.
> 
> *In my opiinion, LIBERALISM, as it is most often understood and defined in America these days, has been detrimental to the United States in that it has created a cultural change that makes us a far weaker, less capable people all too willing to look for a big sugar daddy to accomplish what we no longer have the will to do for ourselves.   And that's why I hate it.*
> 
> I wonder if anybody would be wiling to discuss that?
> 
> I don't hate anybody, much less somebody because he or she is a liberal.
> 
> Steps off soapbox. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be me I assume.  And I don't think the topic, whether Liberals the people or Liberalism the philosophy, CAN advance absent a working definition.  You can't run the train service without time zones, so to speak.  If we all mean something different there can be no comparisons.  The last few blanket ad hominae are examples of that.
> 
> Love ya Foxy, welcome back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the discussion CAN proceed based on the people's perceptions of what something is because, after all, that is the working definition.
> 
> For me a modern American liberal is one who is comfortable with and actually promotes more and more government participation over all aspects of our lives coupled with a notion that their point of view is the only compassionate or caring one.  They really do believe that they, as a group,are nicer, more intelligent, more commendable people than are those who do not share their views.  And more importantly, they do not trust their fellow man to do the right thing and look to government to require him/her to do the right thing that they see as right.  And of course they see a left leaning government as the only entity capable of bringing about a better society.
> 
> Love you too.
Click to expand...


Well you'll need a new definition then because I don't agree with that one.  Except for the personality traits you basically described leftistm there, not liberalism.

The personality traits are (I guess) an invention, because there's no way you can know that.  I'm at a loss to guess how you can infer personality traits from political philosophies.  That's an indication of a flawed definition right there.  I mean -- what kind of personality traits to conservatives have?  That isn't a serious question -- because it can't be.

Yeah, but I love you more


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be me I assume.  And I don't think the topic, whether Liberals the people or Liberalism the philosophy, CAN advance absent a working definition.  You can't run the train service without time zones, so to speak.  If we all mean something different there can be no comparisons.  The last few blanket ad hominae are examples of that.
> 
> Love ya Foxy, welcome back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the discussion CAN proceed based on the people's perceptions of what something is because, after all, that is the working definition.
> 
> For me a modern American liberal is one who is comfortable with and actually promotes more and more government participation over all aspects of our lives coupled with a notion that their point of view is the only compassionate or caring one.  They really do believe that they, as a group,are nicer, more intelligent, more commendable people than are those who do not share their views.  And more importantly, they do not trust their fellow man to do the right thing and look to government to require him/her to do the right thing that they see as right.  And of course they see a left leaning government as the only entity capable of bringing about a better society.
> 
> Love you too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you'll need a new definition then because I don't agree with that one.  Except for the personality traits you basically described leftistm there, not liberalism.
> 
> The personality traits are (I guess) an invention, because there's no way you can know that.  I'm at a loss to guess how you can infer personality traits from political philosophies.  That's an indication of a flawed definition right there.  I mean -- what kind of personality traits to conservatives have?  That isn't a serious question -- because it can't be.
> 
> Yeah, but I love you more
Click to expand...


I can't do anything about your refusal to see how people use a word or term.  And I won't waste more time trying to convince you of how most people use a term or word.   To most people in America, liberalism/progressivism/leftism are indistinguishable from each other and I am going with the common understanding of the terms.

It isn't a personality trait that I discern in the mindset of the various ideologies but rather a core belief system even if that is poorly understood and poorly defined.

It is as simple as say the views on charity that I will use as an example only.

In matters of charity, most modern day American conservatives/rightwingers/libertarians/classical liberals see that as an individual choice or at most should be managed at the state or local level.  And they believe that the culture should demand that every citizen, who is capable of doing so, should work for what they expect to receive and that this is the more compassionate point of view because it does not encourage dependency that is detrimental to the person and/or his/her family.

Liberals see the federal government as the more efficient and effective distributor of charity that they don't really see as charity at all but a right for people to have.  And the concept of individual responsibility or accountability is a separate issue and not to be considered in the dispensation of such right to certain government benefits.  Dependency on government as a negative thing is something that is not to be considered or discussed at all and every effort will be made to divert attention from it.

I do not intend this to encourage a discussion on welfare, but rather to illustrate the different mindset that occurs in our different cultural conservative vs liberal groups in America today.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the discussion CAN proceed based on the people's perceptions of what something is because, after all, that is the working definition.
> 
> For me a modern American liberal is one who is comfortable with and actually promotes more and more government participation over all aspects of our lives coupled with a notion that their point of view is the only compassionate or caring one.  They really do believe that they, as a group,are nicer, more intelligent, more commendable people than are those who do not share their views.  And more importantly, they do not trust their fellow man to do the right thing and look to government to require him/her to do the right thing that they see as right.  And of course they see a left leaning government as the only entity capable of bringing about a better society.
> 
> Love you too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you'll need a new definition then because I don't agree with that one.  Except for the personality traits you basically described leftistm there, not liberalism.
> 
> The personality traits are (I guess) an invention, because there's no way you can know that.  I'm at a loss to guess how you can infer personality traits from political philosophies.  That's an indication of a flawed definition right there.  I mean -- what kind of personality traits to conservatives have?  That isn't a serious question -- because it can't be.
> 
> Yeah, but I love you more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't do anything about your refusal to see how people use a word or term.  And I won't waste more time trying to convince you of how most people use a term or word.   To most people in America, liberalism/progressivism/leftism are indistinguishable from each other and I am going with the common understanding of the terms.
> 
> It isn't a personality trait that I discern in the mindset of the various ideologies but rather a core belief system even if that is poorly understood and poorly defined.
> 
> It is as simple as say the views on charity that I will use as an example only.
> 
> In matters of charity, most modern day American conservatives/rightwingers/libertarians/classical liberals see that as an individual choice or at most should be managed at the state or local level.  And they believe that the culture should demand that every citizen, who is capable of doing so, should work for what they expect to receive and that this is the more compassionate point of view because it does not encourage dependency that is detrimental to the person and/or his/her family.
> 
> Liberals see the federal government as the more efficient and effective distributor of charity that they don't really see as charity at all but a right for people to have.  And the concept of individual responsibility or accountability is a separate issue and not to be considered in the dispensation of such right to certain government benefits.  Dependency on government as a negative thing is something that is not to be considered or discussed at all and every effort will be made to divert attention from it.
> 
> I do not intend this to encourage a discussion on welfare, but rather to illustrate the different mindset that occurs in our different cultural conservative vs liberal groups in America today.
Click to expand...


If we can't agree on what we're talking about, perhaps we need the OP to define it.  Because as long as you're describing a term I don't agree with the definition of, you're having a monologue.  I still say we need to define our terms.  Because the contrast you've described above has nothing to do with Liberalism.

As a (re)starting point, would you care to address Wildcard's list of 20 questions back here, since he runs away from it?  It's not only a rash of specious reasoning, but to my eyes there is exactly one question on that list of twenty that has any relation to Liberalism.  I asked him to figure out which one it was.

Do you agree?  How do you see that list as a whole?  I have a reason for asking...

To make it easier, here's the list brought forward.

>> 20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer 

John Hawkins | Apr 20, 2013 

Liberalism doesn't convince with logic. It can't, because the policies liberals advocate don't work. So instead, liberals have to use emotion-based ploys and attack the motives of people they disagree with while attempting to keep conservative arguments from being heard at all. Why? Because they have no good answers to questions like these.

1) A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?

2) If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?

3) How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?

4) What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that hes earned that he should be able to keep? 

5) Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes?

6) Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it's pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they'd like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?

7) If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?

8) How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn't doing well because we aren't spending enough money when we're already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year? 

9) If Republicans dont care about the poor, why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do? 

10) Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn't change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we're seeing in Greece or Cyprus?

11) Since we "all agree" with the idea that our level of deficit spending is "unsustainable," what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?

12) If we change God's definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what's the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be? 

13) In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it's feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners? 

14) If you win a lawsuit that's filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?

15) How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?

16) A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What's the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?

17) The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we've seen over the last century. Since we can't adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?

18) We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn't government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?

19) If people in the middle class aren't willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don't think it's worth the money, shouldn't we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes? 

20) If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don't we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace? <<

The question is: (a) how many of these are related to Liberalism, and (b) how many of these are legitimate questions?


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you'll need a new definition then because I don't agree with that one.  Except for the personality traits you basically described leftistm there, not liberalism.
> 
> The personality traits are (I guess) an invention, because there's no way you can know that.  I'm at a loss to guess how you can infer personality traits from political philosophies.  That's an indication of a flawed definition right there.  I mean -- what kind of personality traits to conservatives have?  That isn't a serious question -- because it can't be.
> 
> Yeah, but I love you more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't do anything about your refusal to see how people use a word or term.  And I won't waste more time trying to convince you of how most people use a term or word.   To most people in America, liberalism/progressivism/leftism are indistinguishable from each other and I am going with the common understanding of the terms.
> 
> It isn't a personality trait that I discern in the mindset of the various ideologies but rather a core belief system even if that is poorly understood and poorly defined.
> 
> It is as simple as say the views on charity that I will use as an example only.
> 
> In matters of charity, most modern day American conservatives/rightwingers/libertarians/classical liberals see that as an individual choice or at most should be managed at the state or local level.  And they believe that the culture should demand that every citizen, who is capable of doing so, should work for what they expect to receive and that this is the more compassionate point of view because it does not encourage dependency that is detrimental to the person and/or his/her family.
> 
> Liberals see the federal government as the more efficient and effective distributor of charity that they don't really see as charity at all but a right for people to have.  And the concept of individual responsibility or accountability is a separate issue and not to be considered in the dispensation of such right to certain government benefits.  Dependency on government as a negative thing is something that is not to be considered or discussed at all and every effort will be made to divert attention from it.
> 
> I do not intend this to encourage a discussion on welfare, but rather to illustrate the different mindset that occurs in our different cultural conservative vs liberal groups in America today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we can't agree on what we're talking about, perhaps we need the OP to define it.  Because as long as you're describing a term I don't agree with the definition of, you're having a monologue.  I still say we need to define our terms.  Because the contrast you've described above has nothing to do with Liberalism.
> 
> As a (re)starting point, would you care to address Wildcard's list of 20 questions back here, since he runs away from it?  It's not only a rash of specious reasoning, but to my eyes there is exactly one question on that list of twenty that has any relation to Liberalism.  I asked him to figure out which one it was.
> 
> Do you agree?  How do you see that list as a whole?  I have a reason for asking...
> 
> To make it easier, here's the list brought forward.
> 
> >> 20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer
> 
> John Hawkins | Apr 20, 2013
> 
> Liberalism doesn't convince with logic. It can't, because the policies liberals advocate don't work. So instead, liberals have to use emotion-based ploys and attack the motives of people they disagree with while attempting to keep conservative arguments from being heard at all. Why? Because they have no good answers to questions like these.
> 
> 1) A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?
> 
> 2) If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?
> 
> 3) How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?
> 
> 4) What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that he&#8217;s earned that he should be able to keep?
> 
> 5) Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes?
> 
> 6) Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it's pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they'd like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?
> 
> 7) If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?
> 
> 8) How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn't doing well because we aren't spending enough money when we're already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?
> 
> 9) If Republicans don&#8217;t care about the poor, why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?
> 
> 10) Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn't change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we're seeing in Greece or Cyprus?
> 
> 11) Since we "all agree" with the idea that our level of deficit spending is "unsustainable," what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?
> 
> 12) If we change God's definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what's the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?
> 
> 13) In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it's feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?
> 
> 14) If you win a lawsuit that's filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?
> 
> 15) How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?
> 
> 16) A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What's the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?
> 
> 17) The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we've seen over the last century. Since we can't adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?
> 
> 18) We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn't government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states&#8217; rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?
> 
> 19) If people in the middle class aren't willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don't think it's worth the money, shouldn't we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?
> 
> 20) If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don't we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace? <<
> 
> The question is: (a) how many of these are related to Liberalism, and (b) how many of these are legitimate questions?
Click to expand...


In my opinion, most--not necessarily all--items on the list are related to or at least can be considered wtihin ideological concepts of liberalsm and conservatism as those terms are most commonly used and understood in America today.  You know--that working understanding of the terms that you will not understand or acknowledge.  \

I haven't spent much time pondering those 20 questions because to me it is a flawed list--some questions are leading; some intentionally provocative; others foolish because nobody but a dedicated economist doing intense research could even ballpark competently, much less answer with any degree of accuracy.

But even if we do consdier the list. . . .

Another way to entitle the list is "20 questions among those that liberals WILL NOT ADDRESS" or consider as a concept.  That is another trait I have noted in modern American liberalism as the term is most commonly used and understood at this time.  It is an extremely rare liberal who will consider or address a concept head on.  Instead he or she will almost always change the question, throw out a straw man or red herring, or otherwise divert from the concept to something easier to attack, accuse, or criticize.

For instance take a single issue or question:

*Should able bodied welfare recipients be required to do any work for what they receive or be required to repay their welfare payments if their circumstances improve?*​
I'm not saying all conservatives WILL address that objectively and without partisan overtones, but I will say that ALL conservatives CAN address the principle involved without dragging anything else into it.

I honestly don't know many liberals who can or will do that.


----------



## Foxfyre

Now playing with that 20 questions list, let's turn them into objective concepts:

1.  ORIGINAL:   A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?

A BETTER QUETION:  Is it okay to relate bad acts of Muslims to an extremist religion, to relate bad acts of politicians to a political party, to relate a bad act of an individual to the Tea Party or other religious groups?​
2) ORIGINAL:  If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?

A BETTER QUESTION:  How do you justify a government having the ability to force one citizen to support another and how do you draw the line on what government can force a citizen to do?​
3) ORIGINAL:  How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?

A BETTER QUESTON:   Does character and do morals matter when electing those who will have ability to make decisions that profoundly affect our lives​?

4) ORIGINAL:  What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that hes earned that he should be able to keep? 

This one is okay as is.​
5)  ORIGINAL:  Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes?

This one is okay as is.​
6) ORIGINAL:  Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it's pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they'd like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?

This one is okay as is.​
7) ORIGINAL:  If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?

I don't really like how this one is worded, but it basically is okay as is.​
8) ORIGINAL:  How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn't doing well because we aren't spending enough money when we're already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?

A BETTER QUESTION:   Is government spending or government austerity the better choice to bring down a runaway deficit and national debt?​
9) ORIGINAL:  If Republicans dont care about the poor, why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do? 

A BETTER QUESTION:   Who is more charitable?  Those who want government to give more to the poor or those who voluntarily give more out of their own pockets?​
10) ORIGINAL:  Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn't change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we're seeing in Greece or Cyprus?

A BETTER QUESTION:  Can a nation continue to add trillions to the national debt each year and remain solvent?​
11) Since we "all agree" with the idea that our level of deficit spending is "unsustainable," what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?

I would have worded it somewhat differently, but in concept this one is okay as is.​
12) ORIGINAL:  If we change God's definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what's the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be? 

This one is okay as is.​
13) ORIGINAL:  In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it's feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners? 

A BETTER QUESTION:  What is the best argument against having the same percentage of taxation applied to all income?​
14) ORIGINAL:  If you win a lawsuit that's filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?

This one is okay as is.​
15)  ORIGINAL:  How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?

A BETTER QUESTION:  Is it irrational to support the death penalty but oppose abortion?  Conversely is it irrational to oppose the death penalty and support abortion?​
16) ORIGINAL:  A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What's the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?

A BETTER QUESTION:  If it is shown that a higher minimum wage shuts many teenagers and lower skilled workers out of the job market altogether, would you support a higher minimum wage?  Why or why not?​
17) ORIGINAL:  The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we've seen over the last century. Since we can't adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?

A BETTER QUESTION:   Do you trust your own government and/or the world community sufficiently to hand over your choices, options, opportunities, and personal liberties for them to manage on your belief that this is necessary to combat global warming?   Why or why not​?

18) ORIGINAL:  We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn't government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?

A BETTER QUESTION:  What is in our best interest:  more centralized power in Washington or more power returned/given to the states and local communities?  Explain your answer.​
19) ORIGINAL:  If people in the middle class aren't willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don't think it's worth the money, shouldn't we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?

A BETTER QUESTION:   Should government be limited to what the people are willing and able to pay for?​

20) ORIGINAL:  If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don't we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace?

A BETTER QUESTION:   What is a fair wage and how is it determined?​


----------



## Bfgrn

Mojo2 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now Mathew, you really think that the economic theories that resulted in the First Great Republican Depression were not destructive? And that the deconstruction of the regulations that were put into place because of that Depression, leading up to October, 2008, and a very near brush with the Second Great Republican Depression, were not destuctive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the jury is still out on who gets the "credit" for the economic calamity of 08.
> 
> And that I need to point this out to you, assuming you are a fair and earnest poster, (a "plain dealer" if you will allow me a bit of American heritage lingo), a man of character who values the truth and integrity in others and who just happens to be a Liberal is typical of Liberals.
> 
> You are politically aware and yet I had to inform you that George W. Bush and/or members of his administration warned about the dangers of Fannie And Freddy's lax lending practices from early in his administration until near the end as the crisis began to hit.
> 
> In fact...
> 
> *"Bushco" made more than thirty warnings about the possibility of an economic crises if policies and practices weren't changed!!*
> 
> And you know what the leading Liberals in Congress said in response to these warnings?
> 
> Watch this...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM]Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> What were those warning signs? Who raised them? And who disputed them?
> 
> So, tell me again, after having watched that video, 'who was responsible for the meltdown?'
> 
> That's one thing that irks me about libs. That even a great guy like you didn't know this and you have been making important decisions based on this faulty info for many years now. Decisions based on myths and propaganda and lies.
> 
> And the folks responsible for keeping you in the dark about all of this, and God knows what else, have profited by their deception and you if you are a typical Liberal will just refuse to see it.
> 
> And I get the impression it isn't always a conscious choice not to believe the truth and then change course. I sometimes believe that some Libs are mentally, physically, biologically or psychologically incapable of controlling themselves...of making themselves do what is right after they have made their emotion based decisions.
> 
> So instead they double down on defending these jerks and con men who have used them like two bit ho's..
> 
> And, again, if you respond to my post by defending them once again, you'll have a perfect example of why I can't stand Liberals.
> 
> Okay.
> 
> Now what?
Click to expand...


Herein lies your problem(s)...

Here is what we DO know:

1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home. 

2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people. 

3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.

4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.

The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a large segment of buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from their mortgages, leaving people who bought homes to live in with lower values on their house and neighborhood.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN


WSJ - Feds Kroszner: Dont Blame CRA

WSJ - Feds Kroszner: Dont Blame CRA - The Sequel

Reuters - UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis 

Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act

Business Insider - Here's Why Fannie And Freddie Are Not At Fault For The Housing Bubble

Center for Responsible Lending - CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown

Don't blame Fannie and Freddie

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

ForeclosureS.com - ACORN - Progress in the Fight Against Predatory Lending

Acorn Led Financial Sector With Warnings on Lending

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

The Millionaire Foreclosure Club

Foreclosure double standard: Why the rich get away with defaulting

More Rich People Default On Mortgages

The rich bail faster on mortgages

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

Rich Borrowers More Likely to Default on Mortgage

Foreclosures & Walking Away: 60 Minutes Eyes an Epidemic

Speculation By Investors Largely Cause Of Foreclosure Crisis

How the Foreclosure Crisis Started: Investors, Speculators, Mortgage Fraud & Lax Lending Standards

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Did "Bushco" make more than thirty warnings about the possibility of an economic crises if HIS policies and practices weren't changed???*

Maybe you just FORGOT...

*Bush's 'ownership society'*

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it soundsa government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgagesderivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the Ownership Society


"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.


----------



## American_Jihad

Wolfsister77 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not and call it what it really is. You being a partisan hack. You can't think for yourself. You think you know what you are talking about but really don't have a clue. And you wouldn't know facts if they were right in front of your face because to you only one perspective has any relevance.
> 
> One sided people who label everyone else falsely and then pretend they won some sort of victory when the person doesn't want to deal with you, are boring as hell.
> 
> Think outside the box for once or just go talk to folks who think like you, there are plenty of them here. And some of them debate with an open mind. Yours is already closed. Closed and locked and buried in the desert somewhere where only people like Rush Limbaugh have the key.
> 
> Good luck going through life like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it doesn't take long at all to peg these bozos.  They'll out themselves, as here.
> Which is a good thing in a way because idiots like this are what drag threads down in an endless and mindless echo of "yammer yammer libtard yammer yammer" that succeeds only in generating a cacophony of rhetorical pink noise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree and unfortunately, it's a waste of time dealing with such strict partisans that immediately discount anyone who doesn't think like them. But they are good with the partisan poo flinging in the threads. *Lets see all Liberals............Obama..............It's boring.*
Click to expand...


Wolfsissy, Not necessarily yawl have a lot of comedians on da left like this commie beatch...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3I-PVVowFY]Maxine Waters (D) Slip of the Tongue Reveals True Intentions (Socialism for America) - YouTube[/ame]





...


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the discussion CAN proceed based on the people's perceptions of what something is because, after all, that is the working definition.
> 
> For me a modern American liberal is one who is comfortable with and actually promotes more and more government participation over all aspects of our lives coupled with a notion that their point of view is the only compassionate or caring one.  They really do believe that they, as a group,are nicer, more intelligent, more commendable people than are those who do not share their views.  And more importantly, they do not trust their fellow man to do the right thing and look to government to require him/her to do the right thing that they see as right.  And of course they see a left leaning government as the only entity capable of bringing about a better society.
> 
> Love you too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you'll need a new definition then because I don't agree with that one.  Except for the personality traits you basically described leftistm there, not liberalism.
> 
> The personality traits are (I guess) an invention, because there's no way you can know that.  I'm at a loss to guess how you can infer personality traits from political philosophies.  That's an indication of a flawed definition right there.  I mean -- what kind of personality traits to conservatives have?  That isn't a serious question -- because it can't be.
> 
> Yeah, but I love you more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't do anything about your refusal to see how people use a word or term.  And I won't waste more time trying to convince you of how most people use a term or word.   To most people in America, liberalism/progressivism/leftism are indistinguishable from each other and I am going with the common understanding of the terms.
> 
> It isn't a personality trait that I discern in the mindset of the various ideologies but rather a core belief system even if that is poorly understood and poorly defined.
> 
> It is as simple as say the views on charity that I will use as an example only.
> 
> In matters of charity, most modern day American conservatives/rightwingers/libertarians/classical liberals see that as an individual choice or at most should be managed at the state or local level.  And they believe that the culture should demand that every citizen, who is capable of doing so, should work for what they expect to receive and that this is the more compassionate point of view because it does not encourage dependency that is detrimental to the person and/or his/her family.
> 
> Liberals see the federal government as the more efficient and effective distributor of charity that they don't really see as charity at all but a right for people to have.  And the concept of individual responsibility or accountability is a separate issue and not to be considered in the dispensation of such right to certain government benefits.  Dependency on government as a negative thing is something that is not to be considered or discussed at all and every effort will be made to divert attention from it.
> 
> I do not intend this to encourage a discussion on welfare, but rather to illustrate the different mindset that occurs in our different cultural conservative vs liberal groups in America today.
Click to expand...


There is so much of the conservative world view lurking behind your attempt to sugar coat social Darwinism. To call it 'compassion' really takes the cake FF.

First off, ALL federal social programs are run by and administered by State and local government.

Let's take a look at HOW your vision of society would actually work on a daily basis for people.

Let's look at a retired couple living on Social Security and Medicare. Joe and Sue are not getting rich, but they have a FIXED income that they can count on, budget for and rely on to live out the remaining years of their life.

HOW would your 'charity' society work FF? Describe a day in the life of Joe and Sue in your 'compassionate' vision of America?

They would NOT have a FIXED income, so what would Joe and Sue do everyday? Would they rise every morning, get dressed, grab a cup, find a busy street corner and beg for money and food FF? Or maybe they could stand in a line every day to get essentials?? 

PLEASE explain how your 'compassionate' society works?


----------



## Mojo2

Bfgrn said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now Mathew, you really think that the economic theories that resulted in the First Great Republican Depression were not destructive? And that the deconstruction of the regulations that were put into place because of that Depression, leading up to October, 2008, and a very near brush with the Second Great Republican Depression, were not destuctive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the jury is still out on who gets the "credit" for the economic calamity of 08.
> 
> And that I need to point this out to you, assuming you are a fair and earnest poster, (a "plain dealer" if you will allow me a bit of American heritage lingo), a man of character who values the truth and integrity in others and who just happens to be a Liberal is typical of Liberals.
> 
> You are politically aware and yet I had to inform you that George W. Bush and/or members of his administration warned about the dangers of Fannie And Freddy's lax lending practices from early in his administration until near the end as the crisis began to hit.
> 
> In fact...
> 
> *"Bushco" made more than thirty warnings about the possibility of an economic crises if policies and practices weren't changed!!*
> 
> And you know what the leading Liberals in Congress said in response to these warnings?
> 
> Watch this...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM]Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> What were those warning signs? Who raised them? And who disputed them?
> 
> So, tell me again, after having watched that video, 'who was responsible for the meltdown?'
> 
> That's one thing that irks me about libs. That even a great guy like you didn't know this and you have been making important decisions based on this faulty info for many years now. Decisions based on myths and propaganda and lies.
> 
> And the folks responsible for keeping you in the dark about all of this, and God knows what else, have profited by their deception and you if you are a typical Liberal will just refuse to see it.
> 
> And I get the impression it isn't always a conscious choice not to believe the truth and then change course. I sometimes believe that some Libs are mentally, physically, biologically or psychologically incapable of controlling themselves...of making themselves do what is right after they have made their emotion based decisions.
> 
> So instead they double down on defending these jerks and con men who have used them like two bit ho's..
> 
> And, again, if you respond to my post by defending them once again, you'll have a perfect example of why I can't stand Liberals.
> 
> Okay.
> 
> Now what?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Herein lies your problem(s)...
> 
> Here is what we DO know:
> 
> 1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.
> 
> 2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.
> 
> 3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.
> 
> 4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.
> 
> The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a large segment of buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from their mortgages, leaving people who bought homes to live in with lower values on their house and neighborhood.
> 
> AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN
> 
> 
> WSJ - Feds Kroszner: Dont Blame CRA
> 
> WSJ - Feds Kroszner: Dont Blame CRA - The Sequel
> 
> Reuters - UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis
> 
> Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act
> 
> Business Insider - Here's Why Fannie And Freddie Are Not At Fault For The Housing Bubble
> 
> Center for Responsible Lending - CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown
> 
> Don't blame Fannie and Freddie
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
> 
> ForeclosureS.com - ACORN - Progress in the Fight Against Predatory Lending
> 
> Acorn Led Financial Sector With Warnings on Lending
> 
> Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich
> 
> The Millionaire Foreclosure Club
> 
> Foreclosure double standard: Why the rich get away with defaulting
> 
> More Rich People Default On Mortgages
> 
> The rich bail faster on mortgages
> 
> Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich
> 
> Rich Borrowers More Likely to Default on Mortgage
> 
> Foreclosures & Walking Away: 60 Minutes Eyes an Epidemic
> 
> Speculation By Investors Largely Cause Of Foreclosure Crisis
> 
> How the Foreclosure Crisis Started: Investors, Speculators, Mortgage Fraud & Lax Lending Standards
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Did "Bushco" make more than thirty warnings about the possibility of an economic crises if HIS policies and practices weren't changed???*
> 
> Maybe you just FORGOT...
> 
> *Bush's 'ownership society'*
> 
> "America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it soundsa government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgagesderivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.
> 
> As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.
> 
> End of the Ownership Society
> 
> 
> "Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
> Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the library full of reading material!

I've started reading and some parts of it will be skimmed. Others will be read for background and part of my time will be spent looking into the areas which I already know are wrong or questionable with the idea of poking holes in your/their arguments.

I haven't yet been disabused of my beliefs but I am challenging them with your info.

So, thanks for that.

I'll be busy for a while.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't do anything about your refusal to see how people use a word or term.  And I won't waste more time trying to convince you of how most people use a term or word.   To most people in America, liberalism/progressivism/leftism are indistinguishable from each other and I am going with the common understanding of the terms.
> 
> It isn't a personality trait that I discern in the mindset of the various ideologies but rather a core belief system even if that is poorly understood and poorly defined.
> 
> It is as simple as say the views on charity that I will use as an example only.
> 
> In matters of charity, most modern day American conservatives/rightwingers/libertarians/classical liberals see that as an individual choice or at most should be managed at the state or local level.  And they believe that the culture should demand that every citizen, who is capable of doing so, should work for what they expect to receive and that this is the more compassionate point of view because it does not encourage dependency that is detrimental to the person and/or his/her family.
> 
> Liberals see the federal government as the more efficient and effective distributor of charity that they don't really see as charity at all but a right for people to have.  And the concept of individual responsibility or accountability is a separate issue and not to be considered in the dispensation of such right to certain government benefits.  Dependency on government as a negative thing is something that is not to be considered or discussed at all and every effort will be made to divert attention from it.
> 
> I do not intend this to encourage a discussion on welfare, but rather to illustrate the different mindset that occurs in our different cultural conservative vs liberal groups in America today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we can't agree on what we're talking about, perhaps we need the OP to define it.  Because as long as you're describing a term I don't agree with the definition of, you're having a monologue.  I still say we need to define our terms.  Because the contrast you've described above has nothing to do with Liberalism.
> 
> As a (re)starting point, would you care to address Wildcard's list of 20 questions back here, since he runs away from it?  It's not only a rash of specious reasoning, but to my eyes there is exactly one question on that list of twenty that has any relation to Liberalism.  I asked him to figure out which one it was.
> 
> Do you agree?  How do you see that list as a whole?  I have a reason for asking...
> 
> To make it easier, here's the list brought forward.
> 
> >> 20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer
> 
> John Hawkins | Apr 20, 2013
> 
> Liberalism doesn't convince with logic. It can't, because the policies liberals advocate don't work. So instead, liberals have to use emotion-based ploys and attack the motives of people they disagree with while attempting to keep conservative arguments from being heard at all. Why? Because they have no good answers to questions like these.
> 
> 1) A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?
> 
> 2) If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?
> 
> 3) How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?
> 
> 4) What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that he&#8217;s earned that he should be able to keep?
> 
> 5) Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes?
> 
> 6) Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it's pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they'd like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?
> 
> 7) If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?
> 
> 8) How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn't doing well because we aren't spending enough money when we're already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?
> 
> 9) If Republicans don&#8217;t care about the poor, why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?
> 
> 10) Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn't change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we're seeing in Greece or Cyprus?
> 
> 11) Since we "all agree" with the idea that our level of deficit spending is "unsustainable," what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?
> 
> 12) If we change God's definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what's the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?
> 
> 13) In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it's feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?
> 
> 14) If you win a lawsuit that's filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?
> 
> 15) How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?
> 
> 16) A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What's the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?
> 
> 17) The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we've seen over the last century. Since we can't adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?
> 
> 18) We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn't government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states&#8217; rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?
> 
> 19) If people in the middle class aren't willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don't think it's worth the money, shouldn't we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?
> 
> 20) If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don't we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace? <<
> 
> The question is: (a) how many of these are related to Liberalism, and (b) how many of these are legitimate questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my opinion, most--not necessarily all--items on the list are related to or at least can be considered wtihin ideological concepts of liberalsm and conservatism as those terms are most commonly used and understood in America today.  You know--that working understanding of the terms that you will not understand or acknowledge.  \
> 
> I haven't spent much time pondering those 20 questions because to me it is a flawed list--some questions are leading; some intentionally provocative; others foolish because nobody but a dedicated economist doing intense research could even ballpark competently, much less answer with any degree of accuracy.
> 
> But even if we do consdier the list. . . .
> 
> Another way to entitle the list is "20 questions among those that liberals WILL NOT ADDRESS" or consider as a concept.  That is another trait I have noted in modern American liberalism as the term is most commonly used and understood at this time.  It is an extremely rare liberal who will consider or address a concept head on.  Instead he or she will almost always change the question, throw out a straw man or red herring, or otherwise divert from the concept to something easier to attack, accuse, or criticize.
> 
> For instance take a single issue or question:
> 
> *Should able bodied welfare recipients be required to do any work for what they receive or be required to repay their welfare payments if their circumstances improve?*​
> I'm not saying all conservatives WILL address that objectively and without partisan overtones, but I will say that ALL conservatives CAN address the principle involved without dragging anything else into it.
> 
> I honestly don't know many liberals who can or will do that.
Click to expand...


Props to Foxy for taking this on while others fall back on blanket ad hominem, wet dreams of imaginary personality traits and in the case of the poster who brought this list in -- dead silence.

Special props for this one:

>> I haven't spent much time pondering those 20 questions because to me it is a flawed list--some questions are leading; some intentionally provocative; others foolish because nobody but a dedicated economist doing intense research could even ballpark competently, much less answer with any degree of accuracy. <<

Exactly.  I concluded the same thing, the point being that the Eliminationists base their case on specious emotional bullshit, blanket demonizations and deliberate misdefinitions.  The list is a bogus glop of rhetorical diarrhea, which is why I refer to its author as having no education.  This is also why I wanted Foxy to address it since she's smart enough to see through the bullshit.

For the record and to my original question to Wildcard who brought this in, the one and only question on this list that has anything to do with Liberalism is *Number 6*.  It's the one and only rationally-presented question that addresses the legitimate role of government, the minimalist of which is what Liberalism is.

And here, the reason I kept this list alive, is an illustration of what *anti-Liberalism* is: a hair-on-fire demagoguery determined to paint the despised group (the eliminatee) in specious emotionally-based disingenuous bovine waste product in an attempt not to engage in rational intellectual discourse but to charge the target with demonic character.

I did my own breakdown of the rest at the time, as I see you did in the next post. Will try to integrate them in a subsequent post.  It'll take a while.


----------



## Foxfyre

And here, Pogo, with this statement:

*And here, the reason I kept this list alive, is an illustration of what anti-Liberalism is: a hair-on-fire demagoguery determined to paint the despised group (the eliminatee) in specious emotionally-based disingenuous bovine waste product in an attempt not to engage in rational intellectual discourse but to charge the target with demonic character.*​
in my opinion you are inadvertently and likely unintentionally guilty of the very thing you accused the author of the list of being:  demonstrating demagoguery in your opinion of the other.  I rather think the author was being quite honest in the development of the list, but because of his/her inability to keep it objective, many of the question are phrased in a flawed manner making an objective answer difficult if not impossible.

As a conservative, I knew exactly where he/she was probably coming from and it is likely from a sincere place.   You, a liberal, seemed unable to see it in that light.  Which is another manifestation of modern day American liberalism as it is most often defined in our modern day culture and why liberalism seems so angry, hateful, and wrong to many of us.  It does not make you unlovable which obvously you are not unlovable.  But the topic of the thread is liberals/liberalism and why they/it are seen so unfavorably when that is the case.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Foxfyre said:


> For instance take a single issue or question:
> 
> *Should able bodied welfare recipients be required to do any work for what they receive or be required to repay their welfare payments if their circumstances improve?*​
> I'm not saying all conservatives WILL address that objectively and without partisan overtones, but I will say that ALL conservatives CAN address the principle involved without dragging anything else into it.
> 
> I honestly don't know many liberals who can or will do that.



Yes, able bodied welfare recipients-able in both mind and body-should be required to work for what they receive. If you can work, you should. No, you should not be required to repay it if circumstances improve but if they do improve, then you don't get it anymore. 

There are situations in which people are better off financially if they collect welfare rather than work and that discourages people from seeking employment while they are on it. A good case can be made for raising the minimum wage to deal with this but the system also needs to be reformed and I am all for that.

CA's Welfare to Work program is a good example of something that should be more widespread because it makes sure people are contributing to the work force, getting education, community service and also helping their children: 

Welfare-to-Work

All welfare to work participants receive an orientation to the program and an appraisal of their education and employment background.

Initially, most individuals receive job search services (assistance in finding a job).
Additional employment-related services are provided based on an individual's education and work history. Individuals may be assigned to:

Unpaid work experience/preparation.
Vocational training placements.
Adult education or community college programs.

In addition, program participants may be eligible for help with child care , transportation, and work-related or training-related expenses. Moreover, participants who find a job and are no longer eligible for welfare may continue to receive help with medical care and child care expenses.

Unless exempt, applicants/recipients of CalWORKs are required to participate in welfare to work activities as a condition of receiving aid.

CalWORKs recipients who are not required to participate in welfare to work activities may volunteer to take part in the program.

Adults in one-parent families must spend at least 30 hours per week in welfare to work activities. The minimum participation requirement for two-parent families is 35 hours per week. After receiving aid for up to a maximum of 24 months, non-exempt adults must work in unsubsidized employment or participate in community services activities for the minimum number of hours listed above.

After recipients find work, a variety of services are available for up to 12 months to assist them to retain their employment and become fully self-sufficient.

Implementing legislation and regulations have provided expanded flexibility to counties to tailor their welfare to work programs to meet the needs of their clients and the local labor market conditions.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> And here, Pogo, with this statement:
> 
> *And here, the reason I kept this list alive, is an illustration of what anti-Liberalism is: a hair-on-fire demagoguery determined to paint the despised group (the eliminatee) in specious emotionally-based disingenuous bovine waste product in an attempt not to engage in rational intellectual discourse but to charge the target with demonic character.*​
> in my opinion you are inadvertently and likely unintentionally guilty of the very thing you accused the author of the list of being:  demonstrating demagoguery in your opinion of the other.  I rather think the author was being quite honest in the development of the list, but because of his/her inability to keep it objective, many of the question are phrased in a flawed manner making an objective answer difficult if not impossible.
> 
> As a conservative, I knew exactly where he/she was probably coming from and it is likely from a sincere place.   You, a liberal, seemed unable to see it in that light.  Which is another manifestation of modern day American liberalism as it is most often defined in our modern day culture and why liberalism seems so angry, hateful, and wrong to many of us.  It does not make you unlovable which obvously you are not unlovable.  But the topic of the thread is liberals/liberalism and why they/it are seen so unfavorably when that is the case.



Ah well now you're moving your own goalposts.  First it was a "flawed" list with "leading" "intentionally provocative" and "foolish" questions -- now in the time it takes to post a single thought, the same list becomes "honest" and "sincere".  All this referring to a list that takes the ironic position in its preamble that "Liberalism doesn't convince with logic".  Ironic since since half-formed emotional arguments, non sequiturs and various other fallacies are what he uses for virtually the entire list.  A pattern you yourself already caught without my leading you there.

Duality duly noted.  Duality duly noted.


----------



## Mojo2

Pogo said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read any post by the following
> Rderp
> Rightwinger
> Luddy
> Franco
> Sallow
> Luiisa
> BDBOOP
> Bodey
> Jake Starkey
> Wry Catcher
> Plasma Balls
> Sarah G
> Black Label
> Noomi
> just to name a few, and that will answer your question on why people hate liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you did here was to restate the question.
> Nanoseconds of thought went into this post, I can tell.  Because corralling a group of people and declaring "everything these guys say is stupid" is obviously deep deductive reasoning.
> 
> Rather than restate the OP question we could raise a new one: why do intellectual sloths fall on blanket statements?  Does their power of self-delusion enable them to actually not mind looking this stupid?  Discuss.
Click to expand...


It's typically Liberal of you you to come to a conclusion based on your imprecise interpretation of his post.

Here, notice what you allege.

*Because corralling a group of people and declaring "everything these guys say is stupid" is obviously deep deductive reasoning.*​
See what you did? You looked at this post.

_* Read any post by the following
Rderp
Rightwinger
Luddy
Franco
Sallow
Luiisa
BDBOOP
Bodey
Jake Starkey
Wry Catcher
Plasma Balls
Sarah G
Black Label
Noomi
just to name a few, and that will answer your question on why people hate liberals. *_

And came to a conclusion of your own creation. Based on something he never said.

Liberals do this one A LOT!!!

Frustrating as hell to have to point out your opponent's inability to process information faithfully and then try to give their arguments any credence knowing it may be based on that guy's little inadvertent (or not) and unbothersome to themselves (or not) little flight of fancy! Everything they do or say would always need to be corroborated because you have seen this example here or another in other circumstances where they have read one thing and then COMPLETELY distorted it to mean another thing.

Everything they say from then on is invalidated, in my book.

And many of the Dems/Libs in D.C. have this typically Liberal trait.

Oh, and who else seems to do this, typically?

Females.

Sorry, but that's what I've observed to be the case as a general rule of thumb and a possibility to keep in mind when arguing with someone and they reply with a strawman statement. Or you find yourselves talking at cross purposes, or you get the impression you just haven't gotten through to them somehow and you wonder if they are being intentionally obtuse.

Chances are they may have this trait.

Another textbook example of why Liberals are not the best ones to be making the decisions that affect this country now and in the future.

I believe in the second amendment.

If I had a gun I couldn't count on to go bang every time I pulled the trigger I would try to get it fixed so that I could trust my life and my loved ones' lives to it. If it EVER AGAIN failed to fire for any reason ever, I would replace it.

This isn't a reason to hate on a Liberal, it's just you can't trust the judgement of someone who somehow, for some unknown reason (other than being afflicted with  Liberalitis lol) can misinterpret the simplest communication. 

Their opinions are unreliable.

No?


----------



## Foxfyre

Wolfsister77 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> For instance take a single issue or question:
> 
> *Should able bodied welfare recipients be required to do any work for what they receive or be required to repay their welfare payments if their circumstances improve?*​
> I'm not saying all conservatives WILL address that objectively and without partisan overtones, but I will say that ALL conservatives CAN address the principle involved without dragging anything else into it.
> 
> I honestly don't know many liberals who can or will do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, able bodied welfare recipients-able in both mind and body-should be required to work for what they receive. If you can work, you should. No, you should not be required to repay it if circumstances improve but if they do improve, then you don't get it anymore.
> 
> There are situations in which people are better off financially if they collect welfare rather than work and that discourages people from seeking employment while they are on it. A good case can be made for raising the minimum wage to deal with this but the system also needs to be reformed and I am all for that.
> 
> CA's Welfare to Work program is a good example of something that should be more widespread because it makes sure people are contributing to the work force, getting education, community service and also helping their children:
> 
> Welfare-to-Work
> 
> All welfare to work participants receive an orientation to the program and an appraisal of their education and employment background.
> 
> Initially, most individuals receive job search services (assistance in finding a job).
> Additional employment-related services are provided based on an individual's education and work history. Individuals may be assigned to:
> 
> Unpaid work experience/preparation.
> Vocational training placements.
> Adult education or community college programs.
> 
> In addition, program participants may be eligible for help with child care , transportation, and work-related or training-related expenses. Moreover, participants who find a job and are no longer eligible for welfare may continue to receive help with medical care and child care expenses.
> 
> Unless exempt, applicants/recipients of CalWORKs are required to participate in welfare to work activities as a condition of receiving aid.
> 
> CalWORKs recipients who are not required to participate in welfare to work activities may volunteer to take part in the program.
> 
> Adults in one-parent families must spend at least 30 hours per week in welfare to work activities. The minimum participation requirement for two-parent families is 35 hours per week. After receiving aid for up to a maximum of 24 months, non-exempt adults must work in unsubsidized employment or participate in community services activities for the minimum number of hours listed above.
> 
> After recipients find work, a variety of services are available for up to 12 months to assist them to retain their employment and become fully self-sufficient.
> 
> Implementing legislation and regulations have provided expanded flexibility to counties to tailor their welfare to work programs to meet the needs of their clients and the local labor market conditions.
Click to expand...


And thank you Wolfsister!!!!

Okay, Wolfsister has provided an objective answer to the question.  She did it without making it partisan, without demonizing or accusing anybody, and without referencing a single politician or other person.  She thus demonstrates that an intelligent liberal CAN argue something without being ad hominem or insulting to some person or group.  Kudos.   (She also, in my opinion, is very rare.  )

The first paragraph of her response directly answers the question.  The remainder is related and I presume intended to support her opinion that requiring able bodied people to work is feasible and is being demonstrated in California.

I have to note that she gave her opinion that welfare recipients should not have to repay what they receive if and when they are able to do so, but did not provide a rationale for that.  That really is a tougher question than is  a work for welfare issue.

Meg Whitman, candidate for governor, in 2010 wrote an equally objective opinion about California welfare that suggests that the official policy and the reality are separate things:

Excerpt:


> The numbers tell a bleak story.  In 1996, California had 21 percent of the nations welfare cases.  Today, 32 percent of all welfare cases in the United States are in California, even though we only represent 12 percent of the total U.S. population.  Consider this troubling comparison; California is nearly twice as big as New York state, but we have five times as many welfare cases.
> 
> Despite being a state famous for opportunity and promise, California lags much of the nation when it comes to moving people from welfare to work, according to the federal government.  Only 22 percent of welfare recipients in California who are required to meet federal work minimums are working.  According to the Public Policy Institute of California, our state is one of only nine that does not unconditionally enforce the federal governments five-year lifetime limit on cash welfare assistance. These flaws in our welfare system, coupled with a monthly cash check that is almost 70 percent higher than the national average, work against the goal of helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity.
> California's flawed welfare system - Opinion - The Orange County Register



Hopefully not shifting the focus of the thread to welfare as that isn't the purpose of this exercise, the question then becomes:

*Who is the more compassionate in their views toward welfare?:*

Wolfsister, the liberal, who argues that the government has the right approach?

. . . .or. . . .

Meg, the conservative, who argues that the government approach is not meeting the goal of "helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity:?

Is it possible that both points of views are equally compassionate and demonstrate equal concern for those who need a hand up?

But how do we get past the demogoguery, demonization, partisanship, and deep seated prejudices targeted at people who think or see differently so that we can even discuss the topic or agree on the goal, much less agree on how best to accomplish a goal?

. . . .


----------



## Mojo2

Foxfyre said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> For instance take a single issue or question:
> 
> *Should able bodied welfare recipients be required to do any work for what they receive or be required to repay their welfare payments if their circumstances improve?*​
> I'm not saying all conservatives WILL address that objectively and without partisan overtones, but I will say that ALL conservatives CAN address the principle involved without dragging anything else into it.
> 
> I honestly don't know many liberals who can or will do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, able bodied welfare recipients-able in both mind and body-should be required to work for what they receive. If you can work, you should. No, you should not be required to repay it if circumstances improve but if they do improve, then you don't get it anymore.
> 
> There are situations in which people are better off financially if they collect welfare rather than work and that discourages people from seeking employment while they are on it. A good case can be made for raising the minimum wage to deal with this but the system also needs to be reformed and I am all for that.
> 
> CA's Welfare to Work program is a good example of something that should be more widespread because it makes sure people are contributing to the work force, getting education, community service and also helping their children:
> 
> Welfare-to-Work
> 
> All welfare to work participants receive an orientation to the program and an appraisal of their education and employment background.
> 
> Initially, most individuals receive job search services (assistance in finding a job).
> Additional employment-related services are provided based on an individual's education and work history. Individuals may be assigned to:
> 
> Unpaid work experience/preparation.
> Vocational training placements.
> Adult education or community college programs.
> 
> In addition, program participants may be eligible for help with child care , transportation, and work-related or training-related expenses. Moreover, participants who find a job and are no longer eligible for welfare may continue to receive help with medical care and child care expenses.
> 
> Unless exempt, applicants/recipients of CalWORKs are required to participate in welfare to work activities as a condition of receiving aid.
> 
> CalWORKs recipients who are not required to participate in welfare to work activities may volunteer to take part in the program.
> 
> Adults in one-parent families must spend at least 30 hours per week in welfare to work activities. The minimum participation requirement for two-parent families is 35 hours per week. After receiving aid for up to a maximum of 24 months, non-exempt adults must work in unsubsidized employment or participate in community services activities for the minimum number of hours listed above.
> 
> After recipients find work, a variety of services are available for up to 12 months to assist them to retain their employment and become fully self-sufficient.
> 
> Implementing legislation and regulations have provided expanded flexibility to counties to tailor their welfare to work programs to meet the needs of their clients and the local labor market conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And thank you Wolfsister!!!!
> 
> Okay, Wolfsister has provided an objective answer to the question.  She did it without making it partisan, without demonizing or accusing anybody, and without referencing a single politician or other person.  She thus demonstrates that an intelligent liberal CAN argue something without being ad hominem or insulting to some person or group.  Kudos.   (She also, in my opinion, is very rare.  )
> 
> The first paragraph of her response directly answers the question.  The remainder is related and I presume intended to support her opinion that requiring able bodied people to work is feasible and is being demonstrated in California.
> 
> I have to note that she gave her opinion that welfare recipients should not have to repay what they receive if and when they are able to do so, but did not provide a rationale for that.  That really is a tougher question than is  a work for welfare issue.
> 
> Meg Whitman, candidate for governor, in 2010 wrote an equally objective opinion about California welfare that suggests that the official policy and the reality are separate things:
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers tell a bleak story.  In 1996, California had 21 percent of the nation&#8217;s welfare cases.  Today, 32 percent of all welfare cases in the United States are in California, even though we only represent 12 percent of the total U.S. population.  Consider this troubling comparison; California is nearly twice as big as New York state, but we have five times as many welfare cases.
> 
> Despite being a state famous for opportunity and promise, California lags much of the nation when it comes to moving people from welfare to work, according to the federal government.  Only 22 percent of welfare recipients in California who are required to meet federal work minimums are working.  According to the Public Policy Institute of California, our state is one of only nine that does not unconditionally enforce the federal government&#8217;s five-year lifetime limit on cash welfare assistance. These flaws in our welfare system, coupled with a monthly cash check that is almost 70 percent higher than the national average, work against the goal of helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity.
> California's flawed welfare system - Opinion - The Orange County Register
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hopefully not shifting the focus of the thread to welfare as that isn't the purpose of this exercise, the question then becomes:
> 
> *Who is the more compassionate in their views toward welfare?:*
> 
> Wolfsister, the liberal, who argues that the government has the right approach?
> 
> . . . .or. . . .
> 
> Meg, the conservative, who argues that the government approach is not meeting the goal of "helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity:?
> 
> Is it possible that both points of views are equally compassionate and demonstrate equal concern for those who need a hand up?
> 
> *But how do we get past the demogoguery, demonization, partisanship, and deep seated prejudices targeted at people who think or see differently so that we can even discuss the topic or agree on the goal, much less agree on how best to accomplish a goal?*
> 
> . . . .
Click to expand...


How?

Recognize that even though 'Mom' is sweet and kind and comes up with good ideas every now and then, her best role is as helpmate to "Dad," who is the boss of the house because he makes better decisions more reliably than Mom.

Until we all recognize who wears the pants we will always be trying to establish that pecking order.

Look at any of the nature programs dealing with packs of predators. Lions, dogs, wolves even the cute little Meerkat. Until it's clearly established who rules the roost there will be a struggle to establish dominance.

And many Conservatives can't trust Liberals to guide this country AT THIS PERILOUS POINT IN TIME!*

So, this issue of who will lead the USA is of vital importance in settling before we can go forward...together, again.



*And note that I'm not mentioning the O name here. (Major concession on my part in the interests of rapprochement.  )


----------



## Bfgrn

Mojo2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, able bodied welfare recipients-able in both mind and body-should be required to work for what they receive. If you can work, you should. No, you should not be required to repay it if circumstances improve but if they do improve, then you don't get it anymore.
> 
> There are situations in which people are better off financially if they collect welfare rather than work and that discourages people from seeking employment while they are on it. A good case can be made for raising the minimum wage to deal with this but the system also needs to be reformed and I am all for that.
> 
> CA's Welfare to Work program is a good example of something that should be more widespread because it makes sure people are contributing to the work force, getting education, community service and also helping their children:
> 
> Welfare-to-Work
> 
> All welfare to work participants receive an orientation to the program and an appraisal of their education and employment background.
> 
> Initially, most individuals receive job search services (assistance in finding a job).
> Additional employment-related services are provided based on an individual's education and work history. Individuals may be assigned to:
> 
> Unpaid work experience/preparation.
> Vocational training placements.
> Adult education or community college programs.
> 
> In addition, program participants may be eligible for help with child care , transportation, and work-related or training-related expenses. Moreover, participants who find a job and are no longer eligible for welfare may continue to receive help with medical care and child care expenses.
> 
> Unless exempt, applicants/recipients of CalWORKs are required to participate in welfare to work activities as a condition of receiving aid.
> 
> CalWORKs recipients who are not required to participate in welfare to work activities may volunteer to take part in the program.
> 
> Adults in one-parent families must spend at least 30 hours per week in welfare to work activities. The minimum participation requirement for two-parent families is 35 hours per week. After receiving aid for up to a maximum of 24 months, non-exempt adults must work in unsubsidized employment or participate in community services activities for the minimum number of hours listed above.
> 
> After recipients find work, a variety of services are available for up to 12 months to assist them to retain their employment and become fully self-sufficient.
> 
> Implementing legislation and regulations have provided expanded flexibility to counties to tailor their welfare to work programs to meet the needs of their clients and the local labor market conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And thank you Wolfsister!!!!
> 
> Okay, Wolfsister has provided an objective answer to the question.  She did it without making it partisan, without demonizing or accusing anybody, and without referencing a single politician or other person.  She thus demonstrates that an intelligent liberal CAN argue something without being ad hominem or insulting to some person or group.  Kudos.   (She also, in my opinion, is very rare.  )
> 
> The first paragraph of her response directly answers the question.  The remainder is related and I presume intended to support her opinion that requiring able bodied people to work is feasible and is being demonstrated in California.
> 
> I have to note that she gave her opinion that welfare recipients should not have to repay what they receive if and when they are able to do so, but did not provide a rationale for that.  That really is a tougher question than is  a work for welfare issue.
> 
> Meg Whitman, candidate for governor, in 2010 wrote an equally objective opinion about California welfare that suggests that the official policy and the reality are separate things:
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers tell a bleak story.  In 1996, California had 21 percent of the nations welfare cases.  Today, 32 percent of all welfare cases in the United States are in California, even though we only represent 12 percent of the total U.S. population.  Consider this troubling comparison; California is nearly twice as big as New York state, but we have five times as many welfare cases.
> 
> Despite being a state famous for opportunity and promise, California lags much of the nation when it comes to moving people from welfare to work, according to the federal government.  Only 22 percent of welfare recipients in California who are required to meet federal work minimums are working.  According to the Public Policy Institute of California, our state is one of only nine that does not unconditionally enforce the federal governments five-year lifetime limit on cash welfare assistance. These flaws in our welfare system, coupled with a monthly cash check that is almost 70 percent higher than the national average, work against the goal of helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity.
> California's flawed welfare system - Opinion - The Orange County Register
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hopefully not shifting the focus of the thread to welfare as that isn't the purpose of this exercise, the question then becomes:
> 
> *Who is the more compassionate in their views toward welfare?:*
> 
> Wolfsister, the liberal, who argues that the government has the right approach?
> 
> . . . .or. . . .
> 
> Meg, the conservative, who argues that the government approach is not meeting the goal of "helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity:?
> 
> Is it possible that both points of views are equally compassionate and demonstrate equal concern for those who need a hand up?
> 
> *But how do we get past the demogoguery, demonization, partisanship, and deep seated prejudices targeted at people who think or see differently so that we can even discuss the topic or agree on the goal, much less agree on how best to accomplish a goal?*
> 
> . . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> Recognize that even though 'Mom' is sweet and kind and comes up with good ideas every now and then, her best role is as helpmate to "Dad," who is the boss of the house because he makes better decisions more reliably than Mom.
> 
> Until we all recognize who wears the pants we will always be trying to establish that pecking order.
> 
> Look at any of the nature programs dealing with packs of predators. Lions, dogs, wolves even the cute little Meerkat. Until it's clearly established who rules the roost there will be a struggle to establish dominance.
> 
> And many Conservatives can't trust Liberals to guide this country AT THIS PERILOUS POINT IN TIME!*
> 
> So, this issue of who will lead the USA is of vital importance in settling before we can go forward...together, again.
> 
> 
> 
> *And note that I'm not mentioning the O name here. (Major concession on my part in the interests of rapprochement.  )
Click to expand...


There you go Foxfyre. Someone who unwittingly just defined the 'conservative' world view of social Darwinism.

Translation: What Conservatives Really Want

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life. 

In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.


----------



## thanatos144

To actually answer this question of the thread it is easy to learn why people hate liberals. All you have to do is look at the president. He is a lying deceitful egotistical ass.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Foxfyre said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> For instance take a single issue or question:
> 
> *Should able bodied welfare recipients be required to do any work for what they receive or be required to repay their welfare payments if their circumstances improve?*​
> I'm not saying all conservatives WILL address that objectively and without partisan overtones, but I will say that ALL conservatives CAN address the principle involved without dragging anything else into it.
> 
> I honestly don't know many liberals who can or will do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, able bodied welfare recipients-able in both mind and body-should be required to work for what they receive. If you can work, you should. No, you should not be required to repay it if circumstances improve but if they do improve, then you don't get it anymore.
> 
> There are situations in which people are better off financially if they collect welfare rather than work and that discourages people from seeking employment while they are on it. A good case can be made for raising the minimum wage to deal with this but the system also needs to be reformed and I am all for that.
> 
> CA's Welfare to Work program is a good example of something that should be more widespread because it makes sure people are contributing to the work force, getting education, community service and also helping their children:
> 
> Welfare-to-Work
> 
> All welfare to work participants receive an orientation to the program and an appraisal of their education and employment background.
> 
> Initially, most individuals receive job search services (assistance in finding a job).
> Additional employment-related services are provided based on an individual's education and work history. Individuals may be assigned to:
> 
> Unpaid work experience/preparation.
> Vocational training placements.
> Adult education or community college programs.
> 
> In addition, program participants may be eligible for help with child care , transportation, and work-related or training-related expenses. Moreover, participants who find a job and are no longer eligible for welfare may continue to receive help with medical care and child care expenses.
> 
> Unless exempt, applicants/recipients of CalWORKs are required to participate in welfare to work activities as a condition of receiving aid.
> 
> CalWORKs recipients who are not required to participate in welfare to work activities may volunteer to take part in the program.
> 
> Adults in one-parent families must spend at least 30 hours per week in welfare to work activities. The minimum participation requirement for two-parent families is 35 hours per week. After receiving aid for up to a maximum of 24 months, non-exempt adults must work in unsubsidized employment or participate in community services activities for the minimum number of hours listed above.
> 
> After recipients find work, a variety of services are available for up to 12 months to assist them to retain their employment and become fully self-sufficient.
> 
> Implementing legislation and regulations have provided expanded flexibility to counties to tailor their welfare to work programs to meet the needs of their clients and the local labor market conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And thank you Wolfsister!!!!
> 
> Okay, Wolfsister has provided an objective answer to the question.  She did it without making it partisan, without demonizing or accusing anybody, and without referencing a single politician or other person.  She thus demonstrates that an intelligent liberal CAN argue something without being ad hominem or insulting to some person or group.  Kudos.   (She also, in my opinion, is very rare.  )
> 
> The first paragraph of her response directly answers the question.  The remainder is related and I presume intended to support her opinion that requiring able bodied people to work is feasible and is being demonstrated in California.
> 
> I have to note that she gave her opinion that welfare recipients should not have to repay what they receive if and when they are able to do so, but did not provide a rationale for that.  That really is a tougher question than is  a work for welfare issue.
> 
> Meg Whitman, candidate for governor, in 2010 wrote an equally objective opinion about California welfare that suggests that the official policy and the reality are separate things:
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers tell a bleak story.  In 1996, California had 21 percent of the nations welfare cases.  Today, 32 percent of all welfare cases in the United States are in California, even though we only represent 12 percent of the total U.S. population.  Consider this troubling comparison; California is nearly twice as big as New York state, but we have five times as many welfare cases.
> 
> Despite being a state famous for opportunity and promise, California lags much of the nation when it comes to moving people from welfare to work, according to the federal government.  Only 22 percent of welfare recipients in California who are required to meet federal work minimums are working.  According to the Public Policy Institute of California, our state is one of only nine that does not unconditionally enforce the federal governments five-year lifetime limit on cash welfare assistance. These flaws in our welfare system, coupled with a monthly cash check that is almost 70 percent higher than the national average, work against the goal of helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity.
> California's flawed welfare system - Opinion - The Orange County Register
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hopefully not shifting the focus of the thread to welfare as that isn't the purpose of this exercise, the question then becomes:
> 
> *Who is the more compassionate in their views toward welfare?:*
> 
> Wolfsister, the liberal, who argues that the government has the right approach?
> 
> . . . .or. . . .
> 
> Meg, the conservative, who argues that the government approach is not meeting the goal of "helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity:?
> 
> Is it possible that both points of views are equally compassionate and demonstrate equal concern for those who need a hand up?
> 
> But how do we get past the demogoguery, demonization, partisanship, and deep seated prejudices targeted at people who think or see differently so that we can even discuss the topic or agree on the goal, much less agree on how best to accomplish a goal?
> 
> . . . .
Click to expand...


Let me just elaborate on why I don't think they should pay it back. I think most people coming off of welfare are going to be struggling enough trying to get on their feet, that they really don't need the extra burden of paying back their benefits. I think it is a benefit for those in need and should only be used by those who are truly in need. I also believe the vulnerable in our society-children, the elderly, handicapped, disabled, veterans-should be taken care of. 

I do not know how to get past all the partisanship or demonization that occurs on this subject. I do agree that abuse is a problem with welfare and food stamps and the system should be reformed. BUT, I do not agree that all people using this system are moochers or takers or whatever deragatory word someone wants to use and I see it all the time from some people. I do not believe it should be a way of life but rather be a social safety net that is there if someone falls on hard times and needs it. And yes, churches and charity groups are a great help too but unfortunately in many cases, they are not able to meet the demand and therefore some Government assistance is necessary.

So yes, both points are compassionate. It's just a debate on what the best approach is and how to implement it that is a problem and quite frankly, I don't have all the answers.

Oh and thanks for the kind words Foxy. I like listening to your point of view as well because you are obviously very well educated on many subjects and you don't name call or demonize anyone.

I just don't agree with your views on Liberalism and Liberals and probably won't change my mind on that. But I will listen to what you have to say regardless of what I feel about it. 

And I love learning new things and if there is a way to educate myself further on a subject, I am happy to do that.

Have a good weekend.


----------



## Mojo2

Mojo2 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the jury is still out on who gets the "credit" for the economic calamity of 08.
> 
> And that I need to point this out to you, assuming you are a fair and earnest poster, (a "plain dealer" if you will allow me a bit of American heritage lingo), a man of character who values the truth and integrity in others and who just happens to be a Liberal is typical of Liberals.
> 
> You are politically aware and yet I had to inform you that George W. Bush and/or members of his administration warned about the dangers of Fannie And Freddy's lax lending practices from early in his administration until near the end as the crisis began to hit.
> 
> In fact...
> 
> *"Bushco" made more than thirty warnings about the possibility of an economic crises if policies and practices weren't changed!!*
> 
> And you know what the leading Liberals in Congress said in response to these warnings?
> 
> Watch this...
> 
> Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube
> 
> What were those warning signs? Who raised them? And who disputed them?
> 
> So, tell me again, after having watched that video, 'who was responsible for the meltdown?'
> 
> That's one thing that irks me about libs. That even a great guy like you didn't know this and you have been making important decisions based on this faulty info for many years now. Decisions based on myths and propaganda and lies.
> 
> And the folks responsible for keeping you in the dark about all of this, and God knows what else, have profited by their deception and you if you are a typical Liberal will just refuse to see it.
> 
> And I get the impression it isn't always a conscious choice not to believe the truth and then change course. I sometimes believe that some Libs are mentally, physically, biologically or psychologically incapable of controlling themselves...of making themselves do what is right after they have made their emotion based decisions.
> 
> So instead they double down on defending these jerks and con men who have used them like two bit ho's..
> 
> And, again, if you respond to my post by defending them once again, you'll have a perfect example of why I can't stand Liberals.
> 
> Okay.
> 
> Now what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herein lies your problem(s)...
> 
> Here is what we DO know:
> 
> 1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.
> 
> 2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.
> 
> 3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.
> 
> 4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.
> 
> The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a large segment of buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from their mortgages, leaving people who bought homes to live in with lower values on their house and neighborhood.
> 
> AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN
> 
> 
> WSJ - Fed&#8217;s Kroszner: Don&#8217;t Blame CRA
> 
> WSJ - Fed&#8217;s Kroszner: Don&#8217;t Blame CRA - The Sequel
> 
> Reuters - UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis
> 
> Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act
> 
> Business Insider - Here's Why Fannie And Freddie Are Not At Fault For The Housing Bubble
> 
> Center for Responsible Lending - CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown
> 
> Don't blame Fannie and Freddie
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
> 
> ForeclosureS.com - ACORN - Progress in the Fight Against Predatory Lending
> 
> Acorn Led Financial Sector With Warnings on Lending
> 
> Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich
> 
> The Millionaire Foreclosure Club
> 
> Foreclosure double standard: Why the rich get away with defaulting
> 
> More Rich People Default On Mortgages
> 
> The rich bail faster on mortgages
> 
> Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich
> 
> Rich Borrowers More Likely to Default on Mortgage
> 
> Foreclosures & Walking Away: 60 Minutes Eyes an &#8216;Epidemic&#8217;
> 
> Speculation By Investors Largely Cause Of Foreclosure Crisis
> 
> How the Foreclosure Crisis Started: Investors, Speculators, Mortgage Fraud & Lax Lending Standards
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Did "Bushco" make more than thirty warnings about the possibility of an economic crises if HIS policies and practices weren't changed???*
> 
> Maybe you just FORGOT...
> 
> *Bush's 'ownership society'*
> 
> "America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds&#8212;a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages&#8212;derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.
> 
> As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.
> 
> End of the &#8216;Ownership Society&#8217;
> 
> 
> "Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
> Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the library full of reading material!
> 
> I've started reading and some parts of it will be skimmed. Others will be read for background and part of my time will be spent looking into the areas which I already know are wrong or questionable with the idea of poking holes in your/their arguments.
> 
> I haven't yet been disabused of my beliefs but I am challenging them with your info.
> 
> So, thanks for that.
> 
> I'll be busy for a while.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VrFV5r8cs0]Eastwood- A Man's Got to Know his Limitations - YouTube[/ame]

After slogging through some of these pages of economic info I began trying to educate myself as I went along, in order to make sense of each new word, term, idea, principle, noted economic guru's name and works and philosophy and respected schools as well as respected schools of thought, I came across. 

Then I remembered Clint's sage advice.



> A man's got to know his limitations.
> 
> Clint Eastwood.



So, I will confine myself to those things I do and do well.

One of which IS NOT to try to make sense of your "stuff" but, instead, to keep everyone thinking about just how Bad Obama is for this country and how important it is that we peacefully remove him from office as quickly as possible.


----------



## Mojo2

Foxfyre said:


> And here, Pogo, with this statement:
> 
> *And here, the reason I kept this list alive, is an illustration of what anti-Liberalism is: a hair-on-fire demagoguery determined to paint the despised group (the eliminatee) in specious emotionally-based disingenuous bovine waste product in an attempt not to engage in rational intellectual discourse but to charge the target with demonic character.*​
> in my opinion you are inadvertently and likely unintentionally guilty of the very thing you accused the author of the list of being:  demonstrating demagoguery in your opinion of the other.  I rather think the author was being quite honest in the development of the list, but because of his/her inability to keep it objective, many of the question are phrased in a flawed manner making an objective answer difficult if not impossible.
> 
> As a conservative, I knew exactly where he/she was probably coming from and it is likely from a sincere place.   You, a liberal, seemed unable to see it in that light.  Which is another manifestation of modern day American liberalism as it is most often defined in our modern day culture and why liberalism seems so angry, hateful, and wrong to many of us.  It does not make you unlovable which obvously you are not unlovable.  But the topic of the thread is liberals/liberalism and why they/it are seen so unfavorably when that is the case.



Without addressing at all the content of your post let me note just how well I thought you said it.


----------



## Bfgrn

Mojo2 said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Herein lies your problem(s)...
> 
> Here is what we DO know:
> 
> 1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.
> 
> 2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.
> 
> 3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.
> 
> 4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.
> 
> The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a large segment of buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from their mortgages, leaving people who bought homes to live in with lower values on their house and neighborhood.
> 
> AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN
> 
> 
> WSJ - Feds Kroszner: Dont Blame CRA
> 
> WSJ - Feds Kroszner: Dont Blame CRA - The Sequel
> 
> Reuters - UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis
> 
> Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act
> 
> Business Insider - Here's Why Fannie And Freddie Are Not At Fault For The Housing Bubble
> 
> Center for Responsible Lending - CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown
> 
> Don't blame Fannie and Freddie
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
> 
> ForeclosureS.com - ACORN - Progress in the Fight Against Predatory Lending
> 
> Acorn Led Financial Sector With Warnings on Lending
> 
> Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich
> 
> The Millionaire Foreclosure Club
> 
> Foreclosure double standard: Why the rich get away with defaulting
> 
> More Rich People Default On Mortgages
> 
> The rich bail faster on mortgages
> 
> Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich
> 
> Rich Borrowers More Likely to Default on Mortgage
> 
> Foreclosures & Walking Away: 60 Minutes Eyes an Epidemic
> 
> Speculation By Investors Largely Cause Of Foreclosure Crisis
> 
> How the Foreclosure Crisis Started: Investors, Speculators, Mortgage Fraud & Lax Lending Standards
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Did "Bushco" make more than thirty warnings about the possibility of an economic crises if HIS policies and practices weren't changed???*
> 
> Maybe you just FORGOT...
> 
> *Bush's 'ownership society'*
> 
> "America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it soundsa government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgagesderivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.
> 
> As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.
> 
> End of the Ownership Society
> 
> 
> "Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
> Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the library full of reading material!
> 
> I've started reading and some parts of it will be skimmed. Others will be read for background and part of my time will be spent looking into the areas which I already know are wrong or questionable with the idea of poking holes in your/their arguments.
> 
> I haven't yet been disabused of my beliefs but I am challenging them with your info.
> 
> So, thanks for that.
> 
> I'll be busy for a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VrFV5r8cs0]Eastwood- A Man's Got to Know his Limitations - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> After slogging through some of these pages of economic info I began trying to educate myself as I went along, in order to make sense of each new word, term, idea, principle, noted economic guru's name and works and philosophy and respected schools as well as respected schools of thought, I came across.
> 
> Then I remembered Clint's sage advice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A man's got to know his limitations.
> 
> Clint Eastwood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I will confine myself to those things I do and do well.
> 
> One of which IS NOT to try to make sense of your "stuff" but, instead, to keep everyone thinking about just how Bad Obama is for this country and how important it is that we peacefully remove him from office as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...


Yea, don't let any 'facts' deter you. At least you taking Clint's advice...LOL


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Now playing with that 20 questions list, let's turn them into objective concepts:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  ORIGINAL:   A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?
> 
> A BETTER QUETION:  Is it okay to relate bad acts of Muslims to an extremist religion, to relate bad acts of politicians to a political party, to relate a bad act of an individual to the Tea Party or other religious groups?​
Click to expand...


ORIGINAL: Strawman fallacy (_we were hearing_);
Biased Sample fallacy (_which proved that the Right is evil_);
Strawman (_terrorists_)
-- the "how can" phrase is inoperative since it's already strawmanically fallacious.  Further, "conservative" and "Muslim" are not opposites or mutually exclusive.

None of these political demagoguery labels have anything to do with "Liberalism".  That's just specious flailing in the rhetorical dark.

REVISION: Absolutely valid question -- but it relates to the fallacy of Guilt by Association, not to philosophies of government.  We agree this question is bullshit.
============================​


Foxfyre said:


> 2) ORIGINAL:  If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?
> 
> A BETTER QUESTION:  How do you justify a government having the ability to force one citizen to support another and how do you draw the line on what government can force a citizen to do?​



ORIGINAL: Does not follow; non sequitur.
While the premise may be Liberal (right to health care etc), "forcing" isn't.  And "gunpoint" is naught but puerile Appeal to Emotion.  Demonstrates the writer's paucity of basis.

REVISION: Far better. First part invokes the public works question, which the blogger could have incorporated into this list but got to swimming in his ad hominemiacal soup so much he musta forgot.  Second part is right on point and would have been a far better wording.




Foxfyre said:


> 3) ORIGINAL:  How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?
> 
> A BETTER QUESTON:   Does character and do morals matter when electing those who will have ability to make decisions that profoundly affect our lives​?



ORIGINAL: Non sequitur again.  Neither the size of government nor the character of politicians are Liberal concerns.  Further, "how can you... while also" is a strawman.  A double.

REVISION: Again, "character and morals" are not part of political discussion.  These are if anything religious/social issues.  Valid question, but not related to political philosophies.  Here we inch toward this grand fallacy that "liberal" and "conservative" and "right" and "left" each carry their own character traits, which is malarkey contrived by demonizationaries.  We'll continue to reject that for the malarkey it is.





Foxfyre said:


> 4) ORIGINAL:  What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that he&#8217;s earned that he should be able to keep?
> 
> This one is okay as is.​



ORIGINAL: Here's a direct invocation of your observation "nobody but a dedicated economist doing intense research could even ballpark competently, much less answer with any degree of accuracy".  A question of degree, ergo policy, not philosophy.

Liberalism doesn't establish this degree; real world circumstances do.  This one's a non-argument.

REVISION: ?? Duality again? 





Foxfyre said:


> 5)  ORIGINAL:  Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes?
> 
> This one is okay as is.​



Economics/history question.  Nothing to do with Liberalism.  See #4 above.




Foxfyre said:


> 6) ORIGINAL:  Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it's pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they'd like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?
> 
> This one is okay as is.​



Agreed  - this is the only entry on the entire list that relates to Liberalism, since it finally addresses what the _reach_ of government should be, which for Liberalism would be minimal.

Strange leading wording here though ("pro-choice or pro-abortion") - ??





Foxfyre said:


> 7) ORIGINAL:  If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?
> 
> I don't really like how this one is worded, but it basically is okay as is.​



ORIGINAL: Strawman (if... so awful).  And fatally oversimplified.  It actually solicits emotional reaction rather than a rational point.  This cannot be read seriously.  It reads more like a marital squabble the neighbors in the next apartment are having than rational argument.

REVISION: you're right on the wording but it's unsalvageable.





Foxfyre said:


> 8) ORIGINAL:  How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn't doing well because we aren't spending enough money when we're already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?
> 
> A BETTER QUESTION:   Is government spending or government austerity the better choice to bring down a runaway deficit and national debt?​



ORIGINAL: Economics question _and _biased sample.  Krugman, if he be a Liberal (and absent any justification we're forced to accept the premise in order to continue), or any other single person, does not and can not by his words or actions represent Liberalism.  That's a fallacy of Composition.  See also the "nobody but a dedicated economist" critique in 3 and 4.

REVISION: Much better, though since either course describes government action, not really related here.  The question that would relate to Liberalism might better be, "what powers should government have to control the economy?"  But the degree to which it can act this way or that way is back to an economics issue.





Foxfyre said:


> 9) ORIGINAL:  If Republicans don&#8217;t care about the poor, why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?
> 
> A BETTER QUESTION:   Who is more charitable?  Those who want government to give more to the poor or those who voluntarily give more out of their own pockets?​



ORIGINAL: Instant strawman at the start.  Moreover, "Republicans" and "Democrats" are irrelevant to the term _Liberal_, with which neither is mutually exclusive.  And "who gives how much to charity", number one cannot be determined on the basis of political party, and number two, is completely irrelevant.  Red Herring.

REVISION: Getting now into questions of individual character, which is unrelated to political philosophy.  





Foxfyre said:


> 10) ORIGINAL:  Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn't change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we're seeing in Greece or Cyprus?
> 
> A BETTER QUESTION:  Can a nation continue to add trillions to the national debt each year and remain solvent?​



Number four in our exciting series of "nobody but a dedicated economist" bullshit questions, apparently having no point at all since any answer ventured could not answer anything about Liberalism.  Ignorance-based once again.

REVISION: Better and valid question, but an economics one, not philosophical.






Foxfyre said:


> 11) Since we "all agree" with the idea that our level of deficit spending is "unsustainable," what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?
> 
> I would have worded it somewhat differently, but in concept this one is okay as is.​



"Nobody but a dedicated economist" entry number five.  This is a question of economic policies and the machinations of budget.  Nothing to do with Liberalism.




Foxfyre said:


> 12) ORIGINAL:  If we change God's definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what's the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?
> 
> This one is okay as is.​



"God" is irrelevant to the law, not to mention its definition of marriage or anything else is hopelessly subjective hearsay, since (s)he has never been known even to exist, let alone speak.  The Strawman assumes we have such original definition in the first place, which we will now "change", loading the question.  The premise is thus inoperative, and the conclusion tries to compare apples to oranges {a: if we change God's law; b: what is the logical argument}

The arguments for or against polygamy are in the domain of religion; the question of relatives may be one of public health.

REVISION: uh- really?




Foxfyre said:


> 13) ORIGINAL:  In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it's feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?
> 
> A BETTER QUESTION:  What is the best argument against having the same percentage of taxation applied to all income?​



ORIGINAL: Economics question.  Not philosophical.  Number six in the parade of "nobody but a dedicated economist" decorative mugs.  Collect the whole set. 

Also as constructed, a fallacy of omission (argument from ignorance), implying that the figures given (if they're even reliable) are the _only_ factors that need be considered.  

REVISION: Far far better question, and deserving.  But again, gets to the nuts and bolts of economic policy.  We could hash this one out and then argue which of the resulting proposals would be more "Liberal".




Foxfyre said:


> 14) ORIGINAL:  If you win a lawsuit that's filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?
> 
> This one is okay as is.​



I have no clue what in the wide world of sports this one has to do with Liberalism.  Or politics.  This one's a complete head-scratcher. 

It's a fair question on its own, but it crashed the gate here.






Foxfyre said:


> 15)  ORIGINAL:  How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?
> 
> A BETTER QUESTION:  Is it irrational to support the death penalty but oppose abortion?  Conversely is it irrational to oppose the death penalty and support abortion?​



ORIGINAL: Moral question, except to the extent the State is involved.  That would include capital punishment, but "rectitude" remains a moral/religious question.  The only relevance to Liberalism is the question "does the State have the right (philosophically) to execute".

Moreover, it's a loaded question ("innocent children") -- a definition (child vs. fetus) that isn't mutually agreed upon, and hasn't been traditionally agreed upon, including by the Church itself.

REVISION: Better and worthy question, but it's about moral principles, not what powers a State may use.





Foxfyre said:


> 16) ORIGINAL:  A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What's the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?
> 
> A BETTER QUESTION:  If it is shown that a higher minimum wage shuts many teenagers and lower skilled workers out of the job market altogether, would you support a higher minimum wage?  Why or why not?​



Strawman premise in first sentence: we don't know that's true.  From this tenuous launchpad erupts once again, an economics question.  Determining a number cannot be a "Liberal" undertaking.  We're up to at least the seventh "nobody but a dedicated economist" canard, nearly half the entire list.

REVISION: Crucial improvement adding the word *If* 
Still a question of economic policy but far better expressed.





Foxfyre said:


> 17) ORIGINAL:  The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we've seen over the last century. Since we can't adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?
> 
> A BETTER QUESTION:   Do you trust your own government and/or the world community sufficiently to hand over your choices, options, opportunities, and personal liberties for them to manage on your belief that this is necessary to combat global warming?   Why or why not​?



ORIGINAL: Nothing to do with Liberalism; this is a science question.  And again, any possible answer ventured would have nothing to do with "Liberal" or "Conservative".

REVISION: Although unrelated to the original, this is far better worded.  Rather than "do you trust" (which is emotional) it should read "what powers should the government have to..." and then we have a question on Liberalism, which also invokes public health -- like public works, a topic that was not raised here.





Foxfyre said:


> 18) ORIGINAL:  We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn't government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states&#8217; rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?
> 
> A BETTER QUESTION:  What is in our best interest:  more centralized power in Washington or more power returned/given to the states and local communities?  Explain your answer.​



ORIGINAL: I'd call this a loaded strawman right at the start ("more choices"); then it moves on to a non sequitur.  What do choices, real or imagined, have to do with government centralisation?  Nothing.

That said, less power in government generally, would be the Liberal ideal.

I had one of our less brilliant posters in here doggedly (I think it was Rottweiler) trying to tell me that "liberal" referred to the *size *of government.  As if there were some fifty-yard-line above which we have Liberalism and below which we have... well, he didn't say. Seriously. That's the depth of ignorance we have here.

REVISION: Excellent question for the actual topic.  Unrelated to the original -- as it should be.




Foxfyre said:


> 19) ORIGINAL:  If people in the middle class aren't willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don't think it's worth the money, shouldn't we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?
> 
> A BETTER QUESTION:   Should government be limited to what the people are willing and able to pay for?​



ORIGINAL: Actually this one's not bad, even though it presents an if...then (fairly this time) that cannot be measured.  The flaw being that Liberalism (or any other philosophy) wouldn't hang its hat on the question of whether some segment of the population "aren't willing".  That's not a political philosophy question - it's pragmatism.

REVISION: Much better.




Foxfyre said:


> 20) ORIGINAL:  If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don't we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace?
> 
> A BETTER QUESTION:   What is a fair wage and how is it determined?​



ORIGINAL: Because like #7, of which this is a wan restatement, it ignores myriad other factors including social standards.  Also a fallacy of omission (argument from ignorance) in the phrase "why don't we see".  Somewhere Bertrand  Russell is laughing maniacally over his teapot.

REVISION: Infinitely better.


Thanks for putting the time into this Foxy. I'm aware it wasn't your list to justify but I thought the points were ample food for thought.  Not so much for the issues they raised (and more often failed to raise) but for the way they exemplify what we're talking about in our various definitions of _Liberal_: arguments from ignorance, hasty generalizations, fallacies of composition, strawmen, and especially, appeals to emotion.  Although clearly these are not your inventions and you know better, when you speak of "definitions as popularly employed", I'm afraid the composition of this list DOES reflect that flawed definition.  And that's why I'm here to fix it.


Perfect example came in while this post was under construction:


thanatos144 said:


> To actually answer this question of the thread it is easy to learn why people hate liberals. All you have to do is look at the president. He is a lying deceitful egotistical ass.



One can see that deep, _deep _rumination went into the making of one's case here.  My head swims in ponderation.  And if it really needs to be spelled out, considering monstrosities like NSA domestic surveillance and the mandated universal purchase of health insurance, Barack O'bama ain't no Liberal.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mojo2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, able bodied welfare recipients-able in both mind and body-should be required to work for what they receive. If you can work, you should. No, you should not be required to repay it if circumstances improve but if they do improve, then you don't get it anymore.
> 
> There are situations in which people are better off financially if they collect welfare rather than work and that discourages people from seeking employment while they are on it. A good case can be made for raising the minimum wage to deal with this but the system also needs to be reformed and I am all for that.
> 
> CA's Welfare to Work program is a good example of something that should be more widespread because it makes sure people are contributing to the work force, getting education, community service and also helping their children:
> 
> Welfare-to-Work
> 
> All welfare to work participants receive an orientation to the program and an appraisal of their education and employment background.
> 
> Initially, most individuals receive job search services (assistance in finding a job).
> Additional employment-related services are provided based on an individual's education and work history. Individuals may be assigned to:
> 
> Unpaid work experience/preparation.
> Vocational training placements.
> Adult education or community college programs.
> 
> In addition, program participants may be eligible for help with child care , transportation, and work-related or training-related expenses. Moreover, participants who find a job and are no longer eligible for welfare may continue to receive help with medical care and child care expenses.
> 
> Unless exempt, applicants/recipients of CalWORKs are required to participate in welfare to work activities as a condition of receiving aid.
> 
> CalWORKs recipients who are not required to participate in welfare to work activities may volunteer to take part in the program.
> 
> Adults in one-parent families must spend at least 30 hours per week in welfare to work activities. The minimum participation requirement for two-parent families is 35 hours per week. After receiving aid for up to a maximum of 24 months, non-exempt adults must work in unsubsidized employment or participate in community services activities for the minimum number of hours listed above.
> 
> After recipients find work, a variety of services are available for up to 12 months to assist them to retain their employment and become fully self-sufficient.
> 
> Implementing legislation and regulations have provided expanded flexibility to counties to tailor their welfare to work programs to meet the needs of their clients and the local labor market conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And thank you Wolfsister!!!!
> 
> Okay, Wolfsister has provided an objective answer to the question.  She did it without making it partisan, without demonizing or accusing anybody, and without referencing a single politician or other person.  She thus demonstrates that an intelligent liberal CAN argue something without being ad hominem or insulting to some person or group.  Kudos.   (She also, in my opinion, is very rare.  )
> 
> The first paragraph of her response directly answers the question.  The remainder is related and I presume intended to support her opinion that requiring able bodied people to work is feasible and is being demonstrated in California.
> 
> I have to note that she gave her opinion that welfare recipients should not have to repay what they receive if and when they are able to do so, but did not provide a rationale for that.  That really is a tougher question than is  a work for welfare issue.
> 
> Meg Whitman, candidate for governor, in 2010 wrote an equally objective opinion about California welfare that suggests that the official policy and the reality are separate things:
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers tell a bleak story.  In 1996, California had 21 percent of the nation&#8217;s welfare cases.  Today, 32 percent of all welfare cases in the United States are in California, even though we only represent 12 percent of the total U.S. population.  Consider this troubling comparison; California is nearly twice as big as New York state, but we have five times as many welfare cases.
> 
> Despite being a state famous for opportunity and promise, California lags much of the nation when it comes to moving people from welfare to work, according to the federal government.  Only 22 percent of welfare recipients in California who are required to meet federal work minimums are working.  According to the Public Policy Institute of California, our state is one of only nine that does not unconditionally enforce the federal government&#8217;s five-year lifetime limit on cash welfare assistance. These flaws in our welfare system, coupled with a monthly cash check that is almost 70 percent higher than the national average, work against the goal of helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity.
> California's flawed welfare system - Opinion - The Orange County Register
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hopefully not shifting the focus of the thread to welfare as that isn't the purpose of this exercise, the question then becomes:
> 
> *Who is the more compassionate in their views toward welfare?:*
> 
> Wolfsister, the liberal, who argues that the government has the right approach?
> 
> . . . .or. . . .
> 
> Meg, the conservative, who argues that the government approach is not meeting the goal of "helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity:?
> 
> Is it possible that both points of views are equally compassionate and demonstrate equal concern for those who need a hand up?
> 
> *But how do we get past the demogoguery, demonization, partisanship, and deep seated prejudices targeted at people who think or see differently so that we can even discuss the topic or agree on the goal, much less agree on how best to accomplish a goal?*
> 
> . . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> Recognize that even though 'Mom' is sweet and kind and comes up with good ideas every now and then, her best role is as helpmate to "Dad," who is the boss of the house because he makes better decisions more reliably than Mom.
> 
> Until we all recognize who wears the pants we will always be trying to establish that pecking order.
> 
> Look at any of the nature programs dealing with packs of predators. Lions, dogs, wolves even the cute little Meerkat. Until it's clearly established who rules the roost there will be a struggle to establish dominance.
> 
> And many Conservatives can't trust Liberals to guide this country AT THIS PERILOUS POINT IN TIME!*
> 
> So, this issue of who will lead the USA is of vital importance in settling before we can go forward...together, again.
> 
> *And note that I'm not mentioning the O name here. (Major concession on my part in the interests of rapprochement.  )
Click to expand...


Okay, Mojo, in his own unique "Mojo" way , has provided an objective observation here while Bfgn, addressing the same post, launched right into a highly partisan and/or ad hominem ideological demogoguery that is typical of most liberals at USMB and, by logical extension, is one of the reasons liberalism is held in such poor esteem by non liberals.

So lets focus on Mojo's response.

Even though the response was given objectively, I was unable to be sure whether he:

a)  Was suggesting a natural pecking order in an efficient and/or effective society by suggesting we need a shepherd or authority in chief who will make our decisions for us. . . .

. . . .that would be a decidedly liberal (as we understand the term in our present culture) point of view and would be rejected by most libertarians/conservatives/classical liberals. . . 

. . .or. . . .

b)  Was suggesting that some are more effective and efficient in others in doing or managing certain things in which case I could easily agree though I am not certain that is even applicable in a discussion of whether Wolfsister or Meg Whitman are equally compassionate in their views of the less fortunate among us.

I would agree that liberalism, as it is generally applied in the current US culture, has produced far more negatives than positives everywhere it has been applied.  But I am looking at that through conservative, as it is generally applied in the current US culture, eyes.  I see liberalism as squelching or discouraging individual liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and initiative and conservatism embracing policy or lack of government interference that promotes individual liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and initiative as I believe that produces a far better quality of life for the vast majority of U.S. citizens.  

I believe encouraging dependence holds a very real danger of producing a lowered permanent quality of life that should not be tolerable to any American.  For every person who climbs out of the dependency, there will be two or more who become too comfortable in it and lose the will to escape it.  And that, to me, a conservative, is as cruel and indefensible as deliberately getting a person hookied on crack or heroin.

Further toward the ends of increased dependency, whether that is the stated goal or not, the liberal concept of reinstalling a king or other authoritarian government--the very concept the Founders intended to free us from--is abhorent to the conservative sense of what government was intended to be.  Thus, we do NOT hand over authority to anybody just because they are bigger, stronger, smarter, etc. but rather we assign duties to those best equipped to perform them well while the people retain the authority.

We are fast losing that concept in America, however.


----------



## Mojo2

Bfgrn said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And thank you Wolfsister!!!!
> 
> Okay, Wolfsister has provided an objective answer to the question.  She did it without making it partisan, without demonizing or accusing anybody, and without referencing a single politician or other person.  She thus demonstrates that an intelligent liberal CAN argue something without being ad hominem or insulting to some person or group.  Kudos.   (She also, in my opinion, is very rare.  )
> 
> The first paragraph of her response directly answers the question.  The remainder is related and I presume intended to support her opinion that requiring able bodied people to work is feasible and is being demonstrated in California.
> 
> I have to note that she gave her opinion that welfare recipients should not have to repay what they receive if and when they are able to do so, but did not provide a rationale for that.  That really is a tougher question than is  a work for welfare issue.
> 
> Meg Whitman, candidate for governor, in 2010 wrote an equally objective opinion about California welfare that suggests that the official policy and the reality are separate things:
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> 
> Hopefully not shifting the focus of the thread to welfare as that isn't the purpose of this exercise, the question then becomes:
> 
> *Who is the more compassionate in their views toward welfare?:*
> 
> Wolfsister, the liberal, who argues that the government has the right approach?
> 
> . . . .or. . . .
> 
> Meg, the conservative, who argues that the government approach is not meeting the goal of "helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity:?
> 
> Is it possible that both points of views are equally compassionate and demonstrate equal concern for those who need a hand up?
> 
> *But how do we get past the demogoguery, demonization, partisanship, and deep seated prejudices targeted at people who think or see differently so that we can even discuss the topic or agree on the goal, much less agree on how best to accomplish a goal?*
> 
> . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> Recognize that even though 'Mom' is sweet and kind and comes up with good ideas every now and then, her best role is as helpmate to "Dad," who is the boss of the house because he makes better decisions more reliably than Mom.
> 
> Until we all recognize who wears the pants we will always be trying to establish that pecking order.
> 
> Look at any of the nature programs dealing with packs of predators. Lions, dogs, wolves even the cute little Meerkat. Until it's clearly established who rules the roost there will be a struggle to establish dominance.
> 
> And many Conservatives can't trust Liberals to guide this country AT THIS PERILOUS POINT IN TIME!*
> 
> So, this issue of who will lead the USA is of vital importance in settling before we can go forward...together, again.
> 
> 
> 
> *And note that I'm not mentioning the O name here. (Major concession on my part in the interests of rapprochement.  )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go Foxfyre. Someone who unwittingly just defined the 'conservative' world view of social Darwinism.
> 
> Translation: What Conservatives Really Want
> 
> Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.
> 
> In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.
> 
> The conservative worldview rejects all of that.
> 
> Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.
> 
> But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?
> 
> The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.
Click to expand...


I spoke for myself and not the Tea Party, the GOP, Black people or former cab drivers (for that matter!)

How about this:

Conservatives might like to help Libs/Dems & Progs arrive at a set of morals they could support.

Right now, I believe you guys will do or say anything at any time to get what you want without regard for ANYTHING.

In the Crosby, Stills and Nash song, "Teach Your Children Well", I listen to the lyrics and am convinced Liberals once had captured the market when it came to principled, thoughtfulness and high morality. I thought this meant today's Libs would be MORE principled... MORE thoughtful... MORE moral...???



> _*MORE, MORE, MORE!??!*_
> 
> That reminds me of a song which was quite different in subject matter than the CSN tune I mentioned above.
> 
> Andrea True Connection - More, More, More (1976) HQ - YouTube



But this doesn't appear to be the case.

So, let's dispense with any more irrelevance. What are you willing to do to become better bi-partisan partners?

We can't trust your choice of POTUS to make good decisions for this country. (Obama)

We can't trust you to make good personnel decisions when it comes to staffing our government in D.C. (Obama et al.)

We can't trust the liberal media to keep us apprised, in a fair and balanced manner, of all the news items that affect ourselves our communities and our country because they are simply watching out for their own bottom line. (Liberal MSM which Obamaco now 'owns.')

We can't trust you Libs to know when you are being used by the MSM and manipulated by the Democrat philosophy and their way of doing bizness. Some of you can't detect it. Others LIKE being used. 

And still others of you Libs have made your deals with the Devil for few pieces of silver. You have gone along with Obama by turning a 'blind eye' to his poor and misconduct in office. You still support him even though he is obviously in the process of dismantling America from within and from the best, most powerful, place to do it. 

The White House. 

So, you have shown NO allegiance with or loyalty to your fellow countrymen. 

After all of that please tell me how and why we can or should trust you after you've betrayed us and the USA?

The only way to move forward is to help make you into people we can trust and have SOME greater amount of confidence in than we have now, that you won't continue helping Obama destroy America.

Are you willing to concede that we Conservatives should take the lead role in helping return to a sense of peace and cooperation?

Are you willing to commit to helping establish a set of values you guys and US guys can both sign onto which would act as part mission statement and part operating principles?

If you can't agree to either one I can't see how you could earn my trust to drive this government again.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And thank you Wolfsister!!!!
> 
> Okay, Wolfsister has provided an objective answer to the question.  She did it without making it partisan, without demonizing or accusing anybody, and without referencing a single politician or other person.  She thus demonstrates that an intelligent liberal CAN argue something without being ad hominem or insulting to some person or group.  Kudos.   (She also, in my opinion, is very rare.  )
> 
> The first paragraph of her response directly answers the question.  The remainder is related and I presume intended to support her opinion that requiring able bodied people to work is feasible and is being demonstrated in California.
> 
> I have to note that she gave her opinion that welfare recipients should not have to repay what they receive if and when they are able to do so, but did not provide a rationale for that.  That really is a tougher question than is  a work for welfare issue.
> 
> Meg Whitman, candidate for governor, in 2010 wrote an equally objective opinion about California welfare that suggests that the official policy and the reality are separate things:
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> 
> Hopefully not shifting the focus of the thread to welfare as that isn't the purpose of this exercise, the question then becomes:
> 
> *Who is the more compassionate in their views toward welfare?:*
> 
> Wolfsister, the liberal, who argues that the government has the right approach?
> 
> . . . .or. . . .
> 
> Meg, the conservative, who argues that the government approach is not meeting the goal of "helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity:?
> 
> Is it possible that both points of views are equally compassionate and demonstrate equal concern for those who need a hand up?
> 
> *But how do we get past the demogoguery, demonization, partisanship, and deep seated prejudices targeted at people who think or see differently so that we can even discuss the topic or agree on the goal, much less agree on how best to accomplish a goal?*
> 
> . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> Recognize that even though 'Mom' is sweet and kind and comes up with good ideas every now and then, her best role is as helpmate to "Dad," who is the boss of the house because he makes better decisions more reliably than Mom.
> 
> Until we all recognize who wears the pants we will always be trying to establish that pecking order.
> 
> Look at any of the nature programs dealing with packs of predators. Lions, dogs, wolves even the cute little Meerkat. Until it's clearly established who rules the roost there will be a struggle to establish dominance.
> 
> And many Conservatives can't trust Liberals to guide this country AT THIS PERILOUS POINT IN TIME!*
> 
> So, this issue of who will lead the USA is of vital importance in settling before we can go forward...together, again.
> 
> *And note that I'm not mentioning the O name here. (Major concession on my part in the interests of rapprochement.  )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, Mojo, in his own unique "Mojo" way , has provided an objective observation here while Bfgn, addressing the same post, launched right into a highly partisan and/or ad hominem ideological demogoguery that is typical of most liberals at USMB and, by logical extension, is one of the reasons liberalism is held in such poor esteem by non liberals.
> 
> So lets focus on Mojo's response.
> 
> Even though the response was given objectively, I was unable to be sure whether he:
> 
> a)  Was suggesting a natural pecking order in an efficient and/or effective society by suggesting we need a shepherd or authority in chief who will make our decisions for us. . . .
> 
> . . . .that would be a decidedly liberal (as we understand the term in our present culture) point of view and would be rejected by most libertarians/conservatives/classical liberals. . .
> 
> . . .or. . . .
> 
> b)  Was suggesting that some are more effective and efficient in others in doing or managing certain things in which case I could easily agree though I am not certain that is even applicable in a discussion of whether Wolfsister or Meg Whitman are equally compassionate in their views of the less fortunate among us.
> 
> I would agree that liberalism, as it is generally applied in the current US culture, has produced far more negatives than positives everywhere it has been applied.  But I am looking at that through conservative, as it is generally applied in the current US culture, eyes.  I see liberalism as squelching or discouraging individual liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and initiative and conservatism embracing policy or lack of government interference that promotes individual liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and initiative as I believe that produces a far better quality of life for the vast majority of U.S. citizens.
> 
> I believe encouraging dependence holds a very real danger of producing a lowered permanent quality of life that should not be tolerable to any American.  For every person who climbs out of the dependency, there will be two or more who become too comfortable in it and lose the will to escape it.  And that, to me, a conservative, is as cruel and indefensible as deliberately getting a person hookied on crack or heroin.
> 
> Further toward the ends of increased dependency, whether that is the stated goal or not, the liberal concept of reinstalling a king or other authoritarian government--the very concept the Founders intended to free us from--is abhorent to the conservative sense of what government was intended to be.  Thus, we do NOT hand over authority to anybody just because they are bigger, stronger, smarter, etc. but rather we assign duties to those best equipped to perform them well while the people retain the authority.
> 
> We are fast losing that concept in America, however.
Click to expand...


Did you hear that grandma? Climb out of your 'dependency' and your wheel chair and get a JOB you lazy mooch!






Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here, Pogo, with this statement:
> 
> *And here, the reason I kept this list alive, is an illustration of what anti-Liberalism is: a hair-on-fire demagoguery determined to paint the despised group (the eliminatee) in specious emotionally-based disingenuous bovine waste product in an attempt not to engage in rational intellectual discourse but to charge the target with demonic character.*​
> in my opinion you are inadvertently and likely unintentionally guilty of the very thing you accused the author of the list of being:  demonstrating demagoguery in your opinion of the other.  I rather think the author was being quite honest in the development of the list, but because of his/her inability to keep it objective, many of the question are phrased in a flawed manner making an objective answer difficult if not impossible.
> 
> As a conservative, I knew exactly where he/she was probably coming from and it is likely from a sincere place.   You, a liberal, seemed unable to see it in that light.  Which is another manifestation of modern day American liberalism as it is most often defined in our modern day culture and why liberalism seems so angry, hateful, and wrong to many of us.  It does not make you unlovable which obvously you are not unlovable.  But the topic of the thread is liberals/liberalism and why they/it are seen so unfavorably when that is the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah well now you're moving your own goalposts.  First it was a "flawed" list with "leading" "intentionally provocative" and "foolish" questions -- now in the time it takes to post a single thought, the same list becomes "honest" and "sincere".  All this referring to a list that takes the ironic position in its preamble that "Liberalism doesn't convince with logic".  Ironic since since half-formed emotional arguments, non sequiturs and various other fallacies are what he uses for virtually the entire list.  A pattern you yourself already caught without my leading you there.
> 
> Duality duly noted.  Duality duly noted.
Click to expand...


I did note your post with comments on the 20 questions, but will not address the questions further lest we derail the intent of this thread. 

I, the conservative, was not critiquing the motives of writer of the list.  You see, I, the conservative, can see the list itself as 'flawed' in form while appreciating that it was intended as sincere and honest by the author.

You, the liberal, accused the author of demgoguery and otherwise accused him while making no effort of any kind to appreciate the thought that had gone into the list or that the subject matter was worthy of discussion.

I criticized the form as not being conducive to objective discussion and explained why I saw it that way along with some suggestions for some better questions.  (And of course there is no doubt that somebody else could come up with even better questions than the ones I suggested off the top of my head.)

You seemed to criticize the person for forming the questions in the first place and/or rejected him as being unworthy of your consideration simply because he did not phrase his questions properly or to whatever standards you would consider acceptable.

And when it comes to discussion of various topics, THAT is a problem in communication between conservatives and liberals.  The conservative is capable of being objective in the discussion and most liberals, at least based on my experience, are not.  I'm not sure how we get around that to find common ground.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here, Pogo, with this statement:
> 
> *And here, the reason I kept this list alive, is an illustration of what anti-Liberalism is: a hair-on-fire demagoguery determined to paint the despised group (the eliminatee) in specious emotionally-based disingenuous bovine waste product in an attempt not to engage in rational intellectual discourse but to charge the target with demonic character.*​
> in my opinion you are inadvertently and likely unintentionally guilty of the very thing you accused the author of the list of being:  demonstrating demagoguery in your opinion of the other.  I rather think the author was being quite honest in the development of the list, but because of his/her inability to keep it objective, many of the question are phrased in a flawed manner making an objective answer difficult if not impossible.
> 
> As a conservative, I knew exactly where he/she was probably coming from and it is likely from a sincere place.   You, a liberal, seemed unable to see it in that light.  Which is another manifestation of modern day American liberalism as it is most often defined in our modern day culture and why liberalism seems so angry, hateful, and wrong to many of us.  It does not make you unlovable which obvously you are not unlovable.  But the topic of the thread is liberals/liberalism and why they/it are seen so unfavorably when that is the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah well now you're moving your own goalposts.  First it was a "flawed" list with "leading" "intentionally provocative" and "foolish" questions -- now in the time it takes to post a single thought, the same list becomes "honest" and "sincere".  All this referring to a list that takes the ironic position in its preamble that "Liberalism doesn't convince with logic".  Ironic since since half-formed emotional arguments, non sequiturs and various other fallacies are what he uses for virtually the entire list.  A pattern you yourself already caught without my leading you there.
> 
> Duality duly noted.  Duality duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did note your post with comments on the 20 questions, but will not address the questions further lest we derail the intent of this thread.
> 
> I, the conservative, was not critiquing the motives of writer of the list.  You see, I, the conservative, can see the list itself as 'flawed' in form while appreciating that it was intended as sincere and honest by the author.
> 
> You, the liberal, accused the author of demgoguery and otherwise accused him while making no effort of any kind to appreciate the thought that had gone into the list or that the subject matter was worthy of discussion.
> 
> I criticized the form as not being conducive to objective discussion and explained why I saw it that way along with some suggestions for some better questions.  (And of course there is no doubt that somebody else could come up with even better questions than the ones I suggested off the top of my head.)
> 
> You seemed to criticize the person for forming the questions in the first place and/or rejected him as being unworthy of your consideration simply because he did not phrase his questions properly or to whatever standards you would consider acceptable.
> 
> And when it comes to discussion of various topics, THAT is a problem in communication between conservatives and liberals.  The conservative is capable of being objective in the discussion and most liberals, at least based on my experience, are not.  I'm not sure how we get around that to find common ground.
Click to expand...


haughty

1. disdainfully proud; snobbish; scornfully arrogant; supercilious:


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here, Pogo, with this statement:
> 
> *And here, the reason I kept this list alive, is an illustration of what anti-Liberalism is: a hair-on-fire demagoguery determined to paint the despised group (the eliminatee) in specious emotionally-based disingenuous bovine waste product in an attempt not to engage in rational intellectual discourse but to charge the target with demonic character.*​
> in my opinion you are inadvertently and likely unintentionally guilty of the very thing you accused the author of the list of being:  demonstrating demagoguery in your opinion of the other.  I rather think the author was being quite honest in the development of the list, but because of his/her inability to keep it objective, many of the question are phrased in a flawed manner making an objective answer difficult if not impossible.
> 
> As a conservative, I knew exactly where he/she was probably coming from and it is likely from a sincere place.   You, a liberal, seemed unable to see it in that light.  Which is another manifestation of modern day American liberalism as it is most often defined in our modern day culture and why liberalism seems so angry, hateful, and wrong to many of us.  It does not make you unlovable which obvously you are not unlovable.  But the topic of the thread is liberals/liberalism and why they/it are seen so unfavorably when that is the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah well now you're moving your own goalposts.  First it was a "flawed" list with "leading" "intentionally provocative" and "foolish" questions -- now in the time it takes to post a single thought, the same list becomes "honest" and "sincere".  All this referring to a list that takes the ironic position in its preamble that "Liberalism doesn't convince with logic".  Ironic since since half-formed emotional arguments, non sequiturs and various other fallacies are what he uses for virtually the entire list.  A pattern you yourself already caught without my leading you there.
> 
> Duality duly noted.  Duality duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did note your post with comments on the 20 questions, but will not address the questions further lest we derail the intent of this thread.
> 
> I, the conservative, was not critiquing the motives of writer of the list.  You see, I, the conservative, can see the list itself as 'flawed' in form while appreciating that it was intended as sincere and honest by the author.
> 
> You, the liberal, accused the author of demgoguery and otherwise accused him while making no effort of any kind to appreciate the thought that had gone into the list or that the subject matter was worthy of discussion.
> 
> I criticized the form as not being conducive to objective discussion and explained why I saw it that way along with some suggestions for some better questions.  (And of course there is no doubt that somebody else could come up with even better questions than the ones I suggested off the top of my head.)
> 
> You seemed to criticize the person for forming the questions in the first place and/or rejected him as being unworthy of your consideration simply because he did not phrase his questions properly or to whatever standards you would consider acceptable.
> 
> And when it comes to discussion of various topics, THAT is a problem in communication between conservatives and liberals.  The conservative is capable of being objective in the discussion and most liberals, at least based on my experience, are not.  I'm not sure how we get around that to find common ground.
Click to expand...


We start by not sticking our fingers in our ears and going  whenever the other speaks.  What the hell do you think the point of 2758 was?

"Derail the intent of this thread"?  Are you fing kidding me??  Anti-liberalism IS THE WHOLE POINT of this thread.  Now you want to run away from it when it becomes inconvenient?


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah well now you're moving your own goalposts.  First it was a "flawed" list with "leading" "intentionally provocative" and "foolish" questions -- now in the time it takes to post a single thought, the same list becomes "honest" and "sincere".  All this referring to a list that takes the ironic position in its preamble that "Liberalism doesn't convince with logic".  Ironic since since half-formed emotional arguments, non sequiturs and various other fallacies are what he uses for virtually the entire list.  A pattern you yourself already caught without my leading you there.
> 
> Duality duly noted.  Duality duly noted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did note your post with comments on the 20 questions, but will not address the questions further lest we derail the intent of this thread.
> 
> I, the conservative, was not critiquing the motives of writer of the list.  You see, I, the conservative, can see the list itself as 'flawed' in form while appreciating that it was intended as sincere and honest by the author.
> 
> You, the liberal, accused the author of demgoguery and otherwise accused him while making no effort of any kind to appreciate the thought that had gone into the list or that the subject matter was worthy of discussion.
> 
> I criticized the form as not being conducive to objective discussion and explained why I saw it that way along with some suggestions for some better questions.  (And of course there is no doubt that somebody else could come up with even better questions than the ones I suggested off the top of my head.)
> 
> You seemed to criticize the person for forming the questions in the first place and/or rejected him as being unworthy of your consideration simply because he did not phrase his questions properly or to whatever standards you would consider acceptable.
> 
> And when it comes to discussion of various topics, THAT is a problem in communication between conservatives and liberals.  The conservative is capable of being objective in the discussion and most liberals, at least based on my experience, are not.  I'm not sure how we get around that to find common ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We start by not sticking our fingers in our ears and going  whenever the other speaks.  What the hell do you think the point of 2758 was?
> 
> "Derail the intent of this thread"?  Are you fing kidding me??  Anti-liberalism IS THE WHOLE POINT of this thread.  Now you want to run away from it when it becomes inconvenient?
Click to expand...


And here you totally misinterpreted what I said.  I intended to reassure you, as a courtesy, that I was not ignoring your post and explained why I would not respond further to the specific questions, as the topic was not the questions, but was rather how we view and/or respond to them as liberals and conservatives.

And you hear that as me accusing you of derailing the thread.

I believe you honestly did not/do not see what I am saying.  It isn't a matter of sticking fingers in ears and refusing to hear.  It is an inability to hear.   A disconnect between how a liberal sees and hears things and how a conservative hears and sees things.

Also, as I have explained already, I don't see the thread as being about anti-liberalism as much as it explores why some see liberals/liberalism so negatively.  (I translate 'hate' as 'negative' here so that I can participate in the discussion.)  But in fairness to you, that might be splitting hairs and I can see why some would not separate those two things.

It is that kind of disconnect I don't know how we get around.  But it is part of the issue, I think, in why liberalism receives such poor marks from conservatives.  Liberals simply don't focus on a concept in the same way conservatives do.

I am sure that any of my conservative friends here will correct me if I am wrong about that.


----------



## Mojo2

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stepping on soap box. . . .
> 
> Reading over the last couple of pages on this thread--no I haven't read the whole thing because there's only so much nonsense a reasonable person can tolerate--I conclude that there is a LOT of nonsense and non sequitur demonstrated here from both sides.
> 
> The OP asked a simple question:  Why do people hate liberals.  The question, of course, is in itself non sequitur since so few people do hate liberals.  I certainly don't.   What I wanted to discuss is why do people hate LIBERALISM as it is most often defined in America today.
> 
> Instead we have had mostly a flame thread focused on individuals and ad hominem that is not useful to the discussion.  Both sides have been guilty of that.  You have one member who focuses almost entirely on the technical definition of 'liberal' instead of the intent of the thread and will not acknowledge that definitions change with common usage.  You have other members who don't seem to remember what the thread topic was about.  And still others, both left and right, who post insulting one liners or the same old tired characterizations that simply won't hold up in court.
> 
> *In my opiinion, LIBERALISM, as it is most often understood and defined in America these days, has been detrimental to the United States in that it has created a cultural change that makes us a far weaker, less capable people all too willing to look for a big sugar daddy to accomplish what we no longer have the will to do for ourselves.   And that's why I hate it.*
> 
> I wonder if anybody would be wiling to discuss that?
> 
> I don't hate anybody, much less somebody because he or she is a liberal.
> 
> Steps off soapbox. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be me I assume.  And I don't think the topic, whether Liberals the people or Liberalism the philosophy, CAN advance absent a working definition.  You can't run the train service without time zones, so to speak.  If we all mean something different there can be no comparisons.  The last few blanket ad hominae are examples of that.
> 
> Love ya Foxy, welcome back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the discussion CAN proceed based on the people's perceptions of what something is because, after all, that is the working definition.
> 
> For me a modern American liberal is one who is comfortable with and actually promotes more and more government participation over all aspects of our lives coupled with a notion that their point of view is the only compassionate or caring one.  They really do believe that they, as a group,are nicer, more intelligent, more commendable people than are those who do not share their views.  And more importantly, they do not trust their fellow man to do the right thing and look to government to require him/her to do the right thing that they see as right.  And of course they see a left leaning government as the only entity capable of bringing about a better society.
> 
> Love you too.
Click to expand...


You could do my speakin for me most days, Ma'am!

Couldn't agree more.

I'll add, they keep trying to prove their emotional bona fides.

Well, THAT'S not what should even be in the discussion when it comes to how well they govern or legislate.

Lefties, don't prove to US how nice you want US to believe you are.

Prove to US you have the character and the brains to lead this great country.

If it wasn't for the low information voters we'd have enjoyed watching a BRILLIANT businessman, and one who went to the NAACP, knowing ahead of time that he'd meet with a crowd of ALL Black men and women who make up Obama's base of support. 

And he promised them his presidency would be better for Black people than Obama's second term would be.

That was a bold and courageous and compassionate and loving sign of true leadership.

And, as usual, the Black man gets eliminated early on in the horror film.

We were in bad economic trouble in 08, Obama STILL hadn't steered us out of the perilous waters by 2012, yet y'all gave him another chance.

And still NOTHING!

Well, Romney made economic turnarounds his mutha fizzukin BIZNESS!. 

If you wanted to just elect Mitt and then dog his ass the next four years we'd STILL be better off with him.

'Gee, Moj, you have no way of proving that.'

Well, you may be right but when you recognize the US was in financial trouble and you bet on Obama instead of Romney, just based on each one's respective training and areas of interest, training, education, track records of success, the conduct of their performance and their intangibles of character, voting for Obama was a stupid bet.

That is, if you place any value on keeping America strong, prosperous and free.

So, to conclude, it's already been established that Libs will do any mindless thing in THE BLINDEST way just to be considered "nice."

Libs, don't convince me you are nice, convince me you are rational, intelligent, in control of your emotions, and that you are far sighted, that you love America and that you have morals and a high placed set of values.

Jeez, we coulda had Romney but instead we chose the one who's bad for US.

Sounds like the typical story of a Sistah who always chooses the wrong guy.


----------



## mamooth

Mojo2 said:


> Lefties, don't prove to US how nice you want US to believe you are.



No one this board has ever called me nice. Where did you get such a crazy idea that liberals want to thought of as nice? Most of the conservatives here spend their days complaining about how meeeeeeeaaaaaaaan we liberals are.



> So, to conclude, it's already been established that Libs will do any mindless thing in THE BLINDEST way just to be considered "nice."



To conclude, you've given no evidence for such a bizarre assertion. It appears to be a merely a deranged fantasy that you take some emotional comfort from.

And that's why you lose elections. Romney was largely rejected because he was seen as out-of-touch with the real world. Plus, he sucked hard as a businessman, only showing competence at destroying companies and sending jobs to Mexico.


----------



## Mojo2

Bfgrn said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And thank you Wolfsister!!!!
> 
> Okay, Wolfsister has provided an objective answer to the question.  She did it without making it partisan, without demonizing or accusing anybody, and without referencing a single politician or other person.  She thus demonstrates that an intelligent liberal CAN argue something without being ad hominem or insulting to some person or group.  Kudos.   (She also, in my opinion, is very rare.  )
> 
> The first paragraph of her response directly answers the question.  The remainder is related and I presume intended to support her opinion that requiring able bodied people to work is feasible and is being demonstrated in California.
> 
> I have to note that she gave her opinion that welfare recipients should not have to repay what they receive if and when they are able to do so, but did not provide a rationale for that.  That really is a tougher question than is  a work for welfare issue.
> 
> Meg Whitman, candidate for governor, in 2010 wrote an equally objective opinion about California welfare that suggests that the official policy and the reality are separate things:
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> 
> Hopefully not shifting the focus of the thread to welfare as that isn't the purpose of this exercise, the question then becomes:
> 
> *Who is the more compassionate in their views toward welfare?:*
> 
> Wolfsister, the liberal, who argues that the government has the right approach?
> 
> . . . .or. . . .
> 
> Meg, the conservative, who argues that the government approach is not meeting the goal of "helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity:?
> 
> Is it possible that both points of views are equally compassionate and demonstrate equal concern for those who need a hand up?
> 
> *But how do we get past the demogoguery, demonization, partisanship, and deep seated prejudices targeted at people who think or see differently so that we can even discuss the topic or agree on the goal, much less agree on how best to accomplish a goal?*
> 
> . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> Recognize that even though 'Mom' is sweet and kind and comes up with good ideas every now and then, her best role is as helpmate to "Dad," who is the boss of the house because he makes better decisions more reliably than Mom.
> 
> Until we all recognize who wears the pants we will always be trying to establish that pecking order.
> 
> Look at any of the nature programs dealing with packs of predators. Lions, dogs, wolves even the cute little Meerkat. Until it's clearly established who rules the roost there will be a struggle to establish dominance.
> 
> And many Conservatives can't trust Liberals to guide this country AT THIS PERILOUS POINT IN TIME!*
> 
> So, this issue of who will lead the USA is of vital importance in settling before we can go forward...together, again.
> 
> 
> 
> *And note that I'm not mentioning the O name here. (Major concession on my part in the interests of rapprochement.  )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go Foxfyre. Someone who unwittingly just defined the 'conservative' world view of social Darwinism.
> 
> Translation: What Conservatives Really Want
> 
> Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.
> 
> In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.
> 
> The conservative worldview rejects all of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?
> 
> The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.
Click to expand...


*Only the clueless and those who listen to the idiots on MSNBC believe this crap. Okay, sorry for being redundant.*


Gee, you were making solid progress and then, BAM, your left front got a blow out and 
you started veering that way and out of control.

*Me thinks SOMEONE may have some unresolved Daddy issues and is intent on making the entire United States suffer his public attempts to work through those issues with our money and our safety and our citizen's freedoms.

When you are able to gain mastery of your demons (lottsa luck with that, Pal. I mean it.) and look past the immediate effect of Obama's actions and policies you will gain a greater appreciation for just how he is using US, er, well...YOU.

I'm reminded of the frequent compliments expressed by so many over the years about the original Rocky and Bullwinkle TV show episodes.

They were entertaining to young kids of 5 but they also weaved into every story rich, adult references and allusions that flew right over the youngsters' heads but were heard and enjoyed by their parents.

*


----------



## Mojo2

mamooth said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties, don't prove to US how nice you want US to believe you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one this board has ever called me nice. Where did you get such a crazy idea that liberals want to thought of as nice? Most of the conservatives here spend their days complaining about how meeeeeeeaaaaaaaan we liberals are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, to conclude, it's already been established that Libs will do any mindless thing in THE BLINDEST way just to be considered "nice."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To conclude, you've given no evidence for such a bizarre assertion. It appears to be a merely a deranged fantasy that you take some emotional comfort from.
> 
> And that's why you lose elections. Romney was largely rejected because he was seen as out-of-touch with the real world. Plus, he sucked hard as a businessman, only showing competence at destroying companies and sending jobs to Mexico.
Click to expand...


Ahh. I look forward to future exchanges where I'll have the opportunity to trash your posts as a way of showing you, "who's yo' Daddy!"


----------



## Pogo

mamooth said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties, don't prove to US how nice you want US to believe you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one this board has ever called me nice. Where did you get such a crazy idea that liberals want to thought of as nice? Most of the conservatives here spend their days complaining about how meeeeeeeaaaaaaaan we liberals are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, to conclude, it's already been established that Libs will do any mindless thing in THE BLINDEST way just to be considered "nice."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To conclude, you've given no evidence for such a bizarre assertion. It appears to be a merely a deranged fantasy that you take some emotional comfort from.
> 
> And that's why you lose elections. Romney was largely rejected because he was seen as out-of-touch with the real world. Plus, he sucked hard as a businessman, only showing competence at destroying companies and sending jobs to Mexico.
Click to expand...


I don't know why you bother with that clown - he's so addicted to blanket statements he makes Linus look independent.

I can see he's trolling the thread down, Wildcard can't even show up to defend his own post, and Foxy, the only antagonist operating with any kind of brain cell, doesn't want to discuss it so I'm going to join the OP and bail out here.  Y'all want to swim in the soup of your own denial in lieu of real answers, have at and enjoy the echo chamber.  I tried talking reason but there's only so much you can say to a collective wall.

As a parting shot-in-the-dark, I leave you once again with this -- I posted it before to underwhelming crickets but if some of y'all take your blinders off it might answer questions you don't know you have.


----------



## Mojo2

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> Recognize that even though 'Mom' is sweet and kind and comes up with good ideas every now and then, her best role is as helpmate to "Dad," who is the boss of the house because he makes better decisions more reliably than Mom.
> 
> Until we all recognize who wears the pants we will always be trying to establish that pecking order.
> 
> Look at any of the nature programs dealing with packs of predators. Lions, dogs, wolves even the cute little Meerkat. Until it's clearly established who rules the roost there will be a struggle to establish dominance.
> 
> And many Conservatives can't trust Liberals to guide this country AT THIS PERILOUS POINT IN TIME!*
> 
> So, this issue of who will lead the USA is of vital importance in settling before we can go forward...together, again.
> 
> *And note that I'm not mentioning the O name here. (Major concession on my part in the interests of rapprochement.  )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Mojo, in his own unique "Mojo" way , has provided an objective observation here while Bfgn, addressing the same post, launched right into a highly partisan and/or ad hominem ideological demogoguery that is typical of most liberals at USMB and, by logical extension, is one of the reasons liberalism is held in such poor esteem by non liberals.
> 
> So lets focus on Mojo's response.
> 
> Even though the response was given objectively, I was unable to be sure whether he:
> 
> a)  Was suggesting a natural pecking order in an efficient and/or effective society by suggesting we need a shepherd or authority in chief who will make our decisions for us. . . .
> 
> . . . .that would be a decidedly liberal (as we understand the term in our present culture) point of view and would be rejected by most libertarians/conservatives/classical liberals. . .
> 
> . . .or. . . .
> 
> b)  Was suggesting that some are more effective and efficient in others in doing or managing certain things in which case I could easily agree though I am not certain that is even applicable in a discussion of whether Wolfsister or Meg Whitman are equally compassionate in their views of the less fortunate among us.
> 
> I would agree that liberalism, as it is generally applied in the current US culture, has produced far more negatives than positives everywhere it has been applied.  But I am looking at that through conservative, as it is generally applied in the current US culture, eyes.  I see liberalism as squelching or discouraging individual liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and initiative and conservatism embracing policy or lack of government interference that promotes individual liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and initiative as I believe that produces a far better quality of life for the vast majority of U.S. citizens.
> 
> I believe encouraging dependence holds a very real danger of producing a lowered permanent quality of life that should not be tolerable to any American.  For every person who climbs out of the dependency, there will be two or more who become too comfortable in it and lose the will to escape it.  And that, to me, a conservative, is as cruel and indefensible as deliberately getting a person hookied on crack or heroin.
> 
> Further toward the ends of increased dependency, whether that is the stated goal or not, the liberal concept of reinstalling a king or other authoritarian government--the very concept the Founders intended to free us from--is abhorent to the conservative sense of what government was intended to be.  Thus, we do NOT hand over authority to anybody just because they are bigger, stronger, smarter, etc. but rather we assign duties to those best equipped to perform them well while the people retain the authority.
> 
> We are fast losing that concept in America, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you hear that grandma? Climb out of your 'dependency' and your wheel chair and get a JOB you lazy mooch!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you hear me grandma?
> 
> Do you hear me grandma?
> 
> Do you hear me grandma?
> 
> Do you hear me grandma?
> 
> You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
> Leviticus 19:32
Click to expand...


Don't raise your voice at Nana!

Go and find an attendant!

Bfgrn?

Hah!

Why not Bfidjit?!


----------



## Mojo2

Pogo said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties, don't prove to US how nice you want US to believe you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one this board has ever called me nice. Where did you get such a crazy idea that liberals want to thought of as nice? Most of the conservatives here spend their days complaining about how meeeeeeeaaaaaaaan we liberals are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, to conclude, it's already been established that Libs will do any mindless thing in THE BLINDEST way just to be considered "nice."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To conclude, you've given no evidence for such a bizarre assertion. It appears to be a merely a deranged fantasy that you take some emotional comfort from.
> 
> And that's why you lose elections. Romney was largely rejected because he was seen as out-of-touch with the real world. Plus, he sucked hard as a businessman, only showing competence at destroying companies and sending jobs to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why you bother with that clown - he's so addicted to blanket statements he makes Linus look independent.
> 
> I can see he's trolling the thread down, Wildcard can't even show up to defend his own post, and Foxy, the only antagonist operating with any kind of brain cell, doesn't want to discuss it so I'm going to join the OP and bail out here.  Y'all want to swim in the soup of your own denial in lieu of real answers, have at and enjoy the echo chamber.  I tried talking reason but there's only so much you can say to a collective wall.
Click to expand...


Are you still here, Fredo??


----------



## American_Jihad

*The Black Book of the American Left*

December 18, 2013 by Theodore Dalrymple

...

He was a red diaper baby, that is to say the child of orthodox communist parents, but by the time he came to young adulthood the Soviet Union was no longer plausibly the hope of the world. However, Horowitz did not at that stage want to throw the baby out with the diapers, and therefore helped to found the New Left. Unfortunately, the internal logic of its socialist beliefs led it to support or make excuses for totalitarian regimes such as Castros, just as the previous generation of orthodox communists had done. It also indulged in what would have been comic operetta revolutionism had it not been for the extreme criminal nastiness of the acts which it excused, condoned, concealed or perpetrated.

Horowitzs essays collected here, written over twenty-five years, are dedicated to demonstrating that this leftism was not an infantile disorder, to quote Lenin, or a mild and mostly harmless childhood illness like mumps, but more usually like a chronic condition with lingering after-effects and flare-ups. Those who suffered it only very rarely got over it fully, the late Christopher Hitchens being a good example of one who did not. He, Hitchens, could never bring himself to admit that he had for all his life admired and extolled a man who was at least as bad as Stalin, namely Trotsky; and his failure to renounce his choice of maître à penser became in time not just a youthful peccadillo of a clever adolescent who wanted to shock the adults but a symptom of a deep character flaw, a fundamental indifference to important truth. With the exception of Hitchens, for whom he has a soft spot and to whom in my opinion he is over-indulgent, Horowitz does not want any of the leftists to get away with it by rewriting not only history but their own biographies.

...

The Black Book of the American Left | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## Bfgrn

Mojo2 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Mojo, in his own unique "Mojo" way , has provided an objective observation here while Bfgn, addressing the same post, launched right into a highly partisan and/or ad hominem ideological demogoguery that is typical of most liberals at USMB and, by logical extension, is one of the reasons liberalism is held in such poor esteem by non liberals.
> 
> So lets focus on Mojo's response.
> 
> Even though the response was given objectively, I was unable to be sure whether he:
> 
> a)  Was suggesting a natural pecking order in an efficient and/or effective society by suggesting we need a shepherd or authority in chief who will make our decisions for us. . . .
> 
> . . . .that would be a decidedly liberal (as we understand the term in our present culture) point of view and would be rejected by most libertarians/conservatives/classical liberals. . .
> 
> . . .or. . . .
> 
> b)  Was suggesting that some are more effective and efficient in others in doing or managing certain things in which case I could easily agree though I am not certain that is even applicable in a discussion of whether Wolfsister or Meg Whitman are equally compassionate in their views of the less fortunate among us.
> 
> I would agree that liberalism, as it is generally applied in the current US culture, has produced far more negatives than positives everywhere it has been applied.  But I am looking at that through conservative, as it is generally applied in the current US culture, eyes.  I see liberalism as squelching or discouraging individual liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and initiative and conservatism embracing policy or lack of government interference that promotes individual liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and initiative as I believe that produces a far better quality of life for the vast majority of U.S. citizens.
> 
> I believe encouraging dependence holds a very real danger of producing a lowered permanent quality of life that should not be tolerable to any American.  For every person who climbs out of the dependency, there will be two or more who become too comfortable in it and lose the will to escape it.  And that, to me, a conservative, is as cruel and indefensible as deliberately getting a person hookied on crack or heroin.
> 
> Further toward the ends of increased dependency, whether that is the stated goal or not, the liberal concept of reinstalling a king or other authoritarian government--the very concept the Founders intended to free us from--is abhorent to the conservative sense of what government was intended to be.  Thus, we do NOT hand over authority to anybody just because they are bigger, stronger, smarter, etc. but rather we assign duties to those best equipped to perform them well while the people retain the authority.
> 
> We are fast losing that concept in America, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you hear that grandma? Climb out of your 'dependency' and your wheel chair and get a JOB you lazy mooch!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you hear me grandma?
> 
> Do you hear me grandma?
> 
> Do you hear me grandma?
> 
> Do you hear me grandma?
> 
> You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
> Leviticus 19:32
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't raise your voice at Nana!
> 
> Go and find an attendant!
> 
> Bfgrn?
> 
> Hah!
> 
> Why not Bfidjit?!
Click to expand...


Among the diminished human abilities the elderly face besides being unable to compete in the workforce is the diminishing physical abilities. HEARING is one of them. Grandma can't HEAR well...


----------



## JimBowie1958

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did note your post with comments on the 20 questions, but will not address the questions further lest we derail the intent of this thread.
> 
> I, the conservative, was not critiquing the motives of writer of the list.  You see, I, the conservative, can see the list itself as 'flawed' in form while appreciating that it was intended as sincere and honest by the author.
> 
> You, the liberal, accused the author of demgoguery and otherwise accused him while making no effort of any kind to appreciate the thought that had gone into the list or that the subject matter was worthy of discussion.
> 
> I criticized the form as not being conducive to objective discussion and explained why I saw it that way along with some suggestions for some better questions.  (And of course there is no doubt that somebody else could come up with even better questions than the ones I suggested off the top of my head.)
> 
> You seemed to criticize the person for forming the questions in the first place and/or rejected him as being unworthy of your consideration simply because he did not phrase his questions properly or to whatever standards you would consider acceptable.
> 
> And when it comes to discussion of various topics, THAT is a problem in communication between conservatives and liberals.  The conservative is capable of being objective in the discussion and most liberals, at least based on my experience, are not.  I'm not sure how we get around that to find common ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We start by not sticking our fingers in our ears and going  whenever the other speaks.  What the hell do you think the point of 2758 was?
> 
> "Derail the intent of this thread"?  Are you fing kidding me??  Anti-liberalism IS THE WHOLE POINT of this thread.  Now you want to run away from it when it becomes inconvenient?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here you totally misinterpreted what I said.  I intended to reassure you, as a courtesy, that I was not ignoring your post and explained why I would not respond further to the specific questions, as the topic was not the questions, but was rather how we view and/or respond to them as liberals and conservatives.
> 
> And you hear that as me accusing you of derailing the thread.
> 
> I believe you honestly did not/do not see what I am saying.  It isn't a matter of sticking fingers in ears and refusing to hear.  It is an inability to hear.   A disconnect between how a liberal sees and hears things and how a conservative hears and sees things.
> 
> Also, as I have explained already, I don't see the thread as being about anti-liberalism as much as it explores why some see liberals/liberalism so negatively.  (I translate 'hate' as 'negative' here so that I can participate in the discussion.)  But in fairness to you, that might be splitting hairs and I can see why some would not separate those two things.
> 
> It is that kind of disconnect I don't know how we get around.  But it is part of the issue, I think, in why liberalism receives such poor marks from conservatives.  Liberals simply don't focus on a concept in the same way conservatives do.
> 
> I am sure that any of my conservative friends here will correct me if I am wrong about that.
Click to expand...


So many people hate liberals because they are lying bastards who will say anything to win the immediate point and then deny it later if they think they can get away with it.

A particular loathesome specimen is Pogo, one of the worst liars on this board.


----------



## editec

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Most of the self proclaiming liberals I know are smug affluent children of smug affluent parents.

They are mostly hypocrites.

And if you're old enough to remember what the Liberals were like when they controlled everything?

You'll remember that they abused power no less than the so called Conservatives do.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> And here you totally misinterpreted what I said.
> ...
> 
> I believe you honestly did not/do not see what I am saying.  It isn't a matter of sticking fingers in ears and refusing to hear.  It is an inability to hear.   A disconnect between how a liberal sees and hears things and how a conservative hears and sees things.
> 
> ...
> 
> It is that kind of disconnect I don't know how we get around.  But it is part of the issue, I think, in why liberalism receives such poor marks from conservatives.  Liberals simply don't focus on a concept in the same way conservatives do.
> 
> I am sure that any of my conservative friends here will correct me if I am wrong about that.



You are getting closer to the truth, but your arrogance and pride keeps you from the finish line.

The issue of communication breakdown is not limited to liberals vs. conservatives, nor men vs. women.   

On any given topic, the number of differing opinions and differing experiences of people are vast.  Additionally each of us use different vocabularies when describing said opinions based on said experiences.

Liberals in fact use even common words in very different ways than Conservatives, same for Libertarians, same for men and women, same for southerners and northerners....

Anyone of intelligence can usually discern different ways to read a sentence, now switch to this thread with dozens of people each reading the sentence with a completely different background.

Then we have the jerks that intentionally bait by using dual meanings in their sentences, to convey their biases and berate to others.

The way to get around it is to provide more detail than a summary, thus allowing more context.  This was my argument to you in one of your threads where you demanded that everyone just "knows" what you meant and I was being a jerk by asking you to explain your questions with more detail.  Hell you freaked out because I asked you to define what you meant by the word "benefit" since as I stated everyone interprets benefits by their own experience.  Yet you demanded that explaining what benefit you were asking about was "derailing the thread."  Thus you purposefully decided to create a communication breakdown, then demanded to maintain the communication breakdown, this evidently because you benefit from the communication breakdown.

Just as democrats benefit from communication breakdowns by using feel good terms like hope and change, so do the republicans.  If we will be attempt to use clarity the communication breakdowns will begin to subside.  But then what would we have to argue about?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Great article here about the psychology of conservatives and liberals.
Unconscious Reactions Separate Liberals and Conservatives: Scientific American

"For example, in a study published in January, a team led by psychologist Michael Dodd and political scientist John Hibbing of the University of NebraskaLincoln found that when viewing a collage of photographs, conservatives' eyes unconsciously lingered 15 percent longer on repellent images, such as car wrecks and excrementsuggesting that conservatives are more attuned than liberals to assessing potential threats."

Meanwhile examining the contents of 76 college students' bedrooms, as one group did in a 2008 study, revealed that conservatives possessed more cleaning and organizational items, such as ironing boards and calendars, confirmation that they are orderly and self-disciplined. Liberals owned more books and travel-related memorabilia, which conforms with previous research suggesting that they are open and novelty-seeking.

Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions. Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living, says social psychologist Paul Nail of the University of Central Arkansas. The fact is we don't live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.

Anxiety is an emotion that waxes and wanes in all of us, and as it swings up or down our political views can shift in its wake. When people feel safe and secure, they become more liberal; when they feel threatened, they become more conservative."

more at link.


----------



## koshergrl

We should listen to a journalist opine about this..why, exactly?

It's an opinion piece, bolstered with questionable *studies* and anecdotes.

She's a screaming progressive who spends her time skewing information to promote a progressive world view.

"...She was a Ted Scripps Fellow in Environmental Journalism in 1993-94. Before coming to CUNY, Laber-Warren taught for 12 years in NYU&#8217;s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program. She is the author of &#8220;A Walk in the Woods: Into the Field Guide,&#8221; an introduction to forest ecology for young children, to be published by Downtown Bookworks in June 2013. She has a B.A. in Humanities from Yale."

CUNY Graduate School of Journalism » Health & Science Faculty


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The Phil Robertson Incident demonstrates how thin-skinned, intolerant and petty the Left is


----------



## Dot Com

why are providing links, for the rw'ers zany assertions, never put in their posts? There either aren't any credible sources or they're too lazy. Which is it?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Dot Com said:


> why are providing links, for the rw'ers zany assertions, never put in their posts? There either aren't any credible sources or they're too lazy. Which is it?



Because if they gave their sources it'd be all conservapedia, godhatesfag.com, stormfront.org and links like that


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Dot Com said:


> why are providing links, for the rw'ers zany assertions, never put in their posts? There either aren't any credible sources or they're too lazy. Which is it?



Both.


----------



## JimBowie1958

There are really two kinds of liberals; 'classic pro-freedom, enlightened, freedom of expression' liberals I just call classic liberals (like JFK and Truman) and then the kind of 'liberals' we have today that are simply neoMarxists in liberal drag. Horrowitz documents this quite well at his site, being a former leftist himself. The Neocons that now form the GOP elite are former classic liberals (and some Trotskyites) in the Democrat Party who migrated to the GOP once the faux liberals (libtards) took control of the Democrats.

Classic liberals still exist in the Democratic party, like Bob Beckel and Allan Colmes, but they are regarded as traitors by the libtards for even bothering to carry on a conversation with conservatives.

The neoMarxist libtards do not believe in reason, or presenting evidence. Why go to the trouble of debate when according to the neoMarxist perspective human behavior is deterministic anyway? So they focus on shout down tactics to silence guest speakers at college campuses, hecklers at political rallies and by being trolling astroturfers on message boards.

If you have a discussion with a classic liberal, you can exchange ideas and learn something from them, and they from you if the facts are on your side. A great number of classic liberals like Paglia are supporting Phil Robertson in this latest act of leftwing Stalinism here in America, for example. But you can learn jack from the neomarxist libtards because they don't care what you think as long as you agree with them, till you agree then you are the enemy. 

But Paglia is not a 'real' feminist to the hard core, gender-war feminists that control main stream feminism, who are entirely neoMarxist in their approach to gender differences. And by that neoMarxist point of view, like the main stream Marxist view of economics is all about class warfare, of the rich oppressing the workers and EVERYTHING the rich do is evil, the neoMarxist gender-war feminists see no good in men at all and all male-female relationships are male exploitations of women. Now that economic Marxism has been largely discredited, most of these neoMarxists now are more like Fabian socialists similar to Sorros than they are to pure Marxists any more. Combined with their control of national governments or near to that in most western countries, they are now closer to fascism than Marxism any more, and their fascist tactics confirm this, but I think 'neoMarxist' a more accurate term, of the Frankfurt school. Frankfurt School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These Frankfurt school, neoMarxists are also fond of rewriting history, making Thomas Jefferson into a rapist of black slaves fathering several mixed race children (despite DNA evidence that makes this a known lie), and the Civil War a war to free the slaves and thus the South despicable people fighting solely to keep their slaves down, even if 98% of them owned no slaves at all and traitors to their country (even though very very few of them ever took an oath of loyalty to the USA).

So the neoMarxists who control the Democratic Party and the leadership of the leftist groups across the board are not interested in discussion, but only in harassment, freely lying when it suits them, ridiculing when it suits them, and never engaging in honest discussion whatsoever. Pogo, Clayton Jones and Dot Com are examples of what I am talking about; rarely ever providing links to support their declarations of Truth, and thinking that what they believe is so obvious that only the very stupid or corrupt or the ignorant could disagree with their axiomatic view of everything.

Real classic liberals are not hated by anyone. Bertrand Russell and John Kenneth Galbraith for examples are still very well thought of by conservatives.

But these libtards are a bunch of fascists to the core, plain and simple, and t hat is why 96% of Americans hate them like I do.


----------



## Bfgrn

Delta4Embassy said:


> Great article here about the psychology of conservatives and liberals.
> Unconscious Reactions Separate Liberals and Conservatives: Scientific American
> 
> "For example, in a study published in January, a team led by psychologist Michael Dodd and political scientist John Hibbing of the University of NebraskaLincoln found that when viewing a collage of photographs, conservatives' eyes unconsciously lingered 15 percent longer on repellent images, such as car wrecks and excrementsuggesting that conservatives are more attuned than liberals to assessing potential threats."
> 
> Meanwhile examining the contents of 76 college students' bedrooms, as one group did in a 2008 study, revealed that conservatives possessed more cleaning and organizational items, such as ironing boards and calendars, confirmation that they are orderly and self-disciplined. Liberals owned more books and travel-related memorabilia, which conforms with previous research suggesting that they are open and novelty-seeking.
> 
> Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions. Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living, says social psychologist Paul Nail of the University of Central Arkansas. The fact is we don't live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.
> 
> Anxiety is an emotion that waxes and wanes in all of us, and as it swings up or down our political views can shift in its wake. When people feel safe and secure, they become more liberal; when they feel threatened, they become more conservative."
> 
> more at link.



Science confirms what has been observed for centuries...

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone (1809  1898)


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bfgrn said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great article here about the psychology of conservatives and liberals.
> Unconscious Reactions Separate Liberals and Conservatives: Scientific American
> 
> "For example, in a study published in January, a team led by psychologist Michael Dodd and political scientist John Hibbing of the University of NebraskaLincoln found that when viewing a collage of photographs, conservatives' eyes unconsciously lingered 15 percent longer on repellent images, such as car wrecks and excrementsuggesting that conservatives are more attuned than liberals to assessing potential threats."
> 
> Meanwhile examining the contents of 76 college students' bedrooms, as one group did in a 2008 study, revealed that conservatives possessed more cleaning and organizational items, such as ironing boards and calendars, confirmation that they are orderly and self-disciplined. Liberals owned more books and travel-related memorabilia, which conforms with previous research suggesting that they are open and novelty-seeking.
> 
> Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions. Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living, says social psychologist Paul Nail of the University of Central Arkansas. The fact is we don't live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.
> 
> Anxiety is an emotion that waxes and wanes in all of us, and as it swings up or down our political views can shift in its wake. When people feel safe and secure, they become more liberal; when they feel threatened, they become more conservative."
> 
> more at link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science confirms what has been observed for centuries...
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone (1809  1898)
Click to expand...


Maybe classic liberalism, but this does not apply to todays Frankfurt neoMarxists who pose as liberals and who control all the formerly great liberal institutions that once argued FOR freedom of speech instead of its suppression.

JFK and Truman would have called Obama a dictator, not a great President, but then they were liberals, not neoMarxists.


----------



## Bfgrn

JimBowie1958 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great article here about the psychology of conservatives and liberals.
> Unconscious Reactions Separate Liberals and Conservatives: Scientific American
> 
> "For example, in a study published in January, a team led by psychologist Michael Dodd and political scientist John Hibbing of the University of NebraskaLincoln found that when viewing a collage of photographs, conservatives' eyes unconsciously lingered 15 percent longer on repellent images, such as car wrecks and excrementsuggesting that conservatives are more attuned than liberals to assessing potential threats."
> 
> Meanwhile examining the contents of 76 college students' bedrooms, as one group did in a 2008 study, revealed that conservatives possessed more cleaning and organizational items, such as ironing boards and calendars, confirmation that they are orderly and self-disciplined. Liberals owned more books and travel-related memorabilia, which conforms with previous research suggesting that they are open and novelty-seeking.
> 
> Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions. Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living, says social psychologist Paul Nail of the University of Central Arkansas. The fact is we don't live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.
> 
> Anxiety is an emotion that waxes and wanes in all of us, and as it swings up or down our political views can shift in its wake. When people feel safe and secure, they become more liberal; when they feel threatened, they become more conservative."
> 
> more at link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science confirms what has been observed for centuries...
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone (1809  1898)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe classic liberalism, but this does not apply to todays Frankfurt neoMarxists who pose as liberals and who control all the formerly great liberal institutions that once argued FOR freedom of speech instead of its suppression.
> 
> JFK and Truman would have called Obama a dictator, not a great President, but then they were liberals, not neoMarxists.
Click to expand...


You really need to turn off the Glenn Becks' and David Horrowitz's...it is rotting your brain.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bfgrn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science confirms what has been observed for centuries...
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone (1809  1898)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe classic liberalism, but this does not apply to todays Frankfurt neoMarxists who pose as liberals and who control all the formerly great liberal institutions that once argued FOR freedom of speech instead of its suppression.
> 
> JFK and Truman would have called Obama a dictator, not a great President, but then they were liberals, not neoMarxists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to turn off the Glenn Becks' and David Horrowitz's...it is rotting your brain.
Click to expand...


And your ignorant response ,citing no fact or reason, is a prime example of what I am talking about, you fucking fascist slimeball.

I rather enjoy the thought of you libtards one day rotting in hell.


----------



## Peterf

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Phil Robertson Incident demonstrates how thin-skinned, intolerant and petty the Left is



Yes all of these things.     But what really gets me is seeing nasty people strike absurd poses of moral superiority - "Look at ME,  I'm soooooo good!" cry the lefties.


----------



## Bfgrn

JimBowie1958 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe classic liberalism, but this does not apply to todays Frankfurt neoMarxists who pose as liberals and who control all the formerly great liberal institutions that once argued FOR freedom of speech instead of its suppression.
> 
> JFK and Truman would have called Obama a dictator, not a great President, but then they were liberals, not neoMarxists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to turn off the Glenn Becks' and David Horrowitz's...it is rotting your brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your ignorant response ,citing no fact or reason, is a prime example of what I am talking about, you fucking fascist slimeball.
> 
> I rather enjoy the thought of you libtards one day rotting in hell.
Click to expand...


You are septic inside. The hatred that is consuming you has been contrived by well paid propagandists like Beck, Horrowitz and Fox News.

It is all conservatives have left to rally around. The 'Reagan revolution' failed. It joins the Bolshevik revolution as the two epic failures of the 20th century.

America is moving on. You will be left behind, and your septic hatred will metastasize then consume.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bfgrn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to turn off the Glenn Becks' and David Horrowitz's...it is rotting your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your ignorant response ,citing no fact or reason, is a prime example of what I am talking about, you fucking fascist slimeball.
> 
> I rather enjoy the thought of you libtards one day rotting in hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are septic inside. The hatred that is consuming you has been contrived by well paid propagandists like Beck, Horrowitz and Fox News.
> 
> It is all conservatives have left to rally around. The 'Reagan revolution' failed. It joins the Bolshevik revolution as the two epic failures of the 20th century.
> 
> America is moving on. You will be left behind, and your septic hatred will metastasize then consume.
Click to expand...


Lol, I don't even like most of Becks stuff, but you libtard fascists make him look like a hero.

Eat shit, stupid ****.


----------



## Dot Com

Bfgrn said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great article here about the psychology of conservatives and liberals.
> Unconscious Reactions Separate Liberals and Conservatives: Scientific American
> 
> "For example, in a study published in January, a team led by psychologist Michael Dodd and political scientist John Hibbing of the University of NebraskaLincoln found that when viewing a collage of photographs, conservatives' eyes unconsciously lingered 15 percent longer on repellent images, such as car wrecks and excrementsuggesting that conservatives are more attuned than liberals to assessing potential threats."
> 
> Meanwhile examining the contents of 76 college students' bedrooms, as one group did in a 2008 study, revealed that conservatives possessed more cleaning and organizational items, such as ironing boards and calendars, confirmation that they are orderly and self-disciplined. Liberals owned more books and travel-related memorabilia, which conforms with previous research suggesting that they are open and novelty-seeking.
> 
> Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions. Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living, says social psychologist Paul Nail of the University of Central Arkansas. The fact is we don't live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.
> 
> Anxiety is an emotion that waxes and wanes in all of us, and as it swings up or down our political views can shift in its wake. When people feel safe and secure, they become more liberal; when they feel threatened, they become more conservative."
> 
> more at link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science confirms what has been observed for centuries...
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone (1809  1898)
Click to expand...


yep. All one has to do is look to the last three repub Presiodential campaigns. ALL three based on fear  & prejudice  whereas Liberal's  are based on strengthening our foundation (infrastructure improvements & updating social safety nets) & aspirations (increasing business & prosperity in the future because the previous steps were taken)


----------



## Bfgrn

JimBowie1958 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your ignorant response ,citing no fact or reason, is a prime example of what I am talking about, you fucking fascist slimeball.
> 
> I rather enjoy the thought of you libtards one day rotting in hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are septic inside. The hatred that is consuming you has been contrived by well paid propagandists like Beck, Horrowitz and Fox News.
> 
> It is all conservatives have left to rally around. The 'Reagan revolution' failed. It joins the Bolshevik revolution as the two epic failures of the 20th century.
> 
> America is moving on. You will be left behind, and your septic hatred will metastasize then consume.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol, I don't even like most of Becks stuff, but you libtard fascists make him look like a hero.
> 
> Eat shit, stupid ****.
Click to expand...


He who angers you conquers you.
E. Kenny

Hey Einstein, you mentioned how you admire 'liberals' like JFK and Truman...THESE liberals?

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948


----------



## Votto

Matthew said:


> Their economic theory's are destructive.



Don't stop there man!!

They favor gay unions even though gay males account for only about 4% of the population but account for well over half the AIDS cases reported in the US.

They favor abortion which has killed over 50 million American lives, our greatest resource.

They favor the NSA police state, even though espousing to oppose the Patriot Act.  Meanwhile, the glibly ignore Obama signing the NDAA which gives the government the right to arrest us without due process and never be seen again.


And as you say, their economic theories are destructive, and will destroy the Republic, which they will blame on capitalism and the Tea Party.

I believe that the modern day progressive is one of the four horsemen mentioned in Revelation.  "I have become death".


----------



## Bfgrn

Votto said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their economic theory's are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't stop there man!!
> 
> They favor gay unions even though gay males account for only about 4% of the population but account for well over half the AIDS cases reported in the US.
> 
> They favor abortion which has killed over 50 million American lives, our greatest resource.
> 
> They favor the NSA police state, even though espousing to oppose the Patriot Act.  Meanwhile, the glibly ignore Obama signing the NDAA which gives the government the right to arrest us without due process and never be seen again.
> 
> 
> And as you say, their economic theories are destructive, and will destroy the Republic, which they will blame on capitalism and the Tea Party.
> 
> I believe that the modern day progressive is one of the four horsemen mentioned in Revelation.  "I have become death".
Click to expand...


Don't let any FACTS disturb your dogma...

The Patriot Act would have died in 2006 and again in 2011 if only the Democrat's votes were counted.

House Vote Roll Call on 2006 Patriot Act Renewal on March 7, *2006*






FYI...

*2011*






And how did the 'Tea-party 'patriots' vote?

122 Tea Party Members of Congress who voted FOR final passage of H.R. 514, reauthorizing the Patriot Act without reform

17 Tea Party Members of Congress who voted AGAINST final passage of H.R. 514, reauthorizing the Patriot Act without reform


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their economic theory's are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't stop there man!!
> 
> They favor gay unions even though gay males account for only about 4% of the population but account for well over half the AIDS cases reported in the US.
> 
> They favor abortion which has killed over 50 million American lives, our greatest resource.
> 
> They favor the NSA police state, even though espousing to oppose the Patriot Act.  Meanwhile, the glibly ignore Obama signing the NDAA which gives the government the right to arrest us without due process and never be seen again.
> 
> 
> And as you say, their economic theories are destructive, and will destroy the Republic, which they will blame on capitalism and the Tea Party.
> 
> I believe that the modern day progressive is one of the four horsemen mentioned in Revelation.  "I have become death".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't let any FACTS disturb your dogma...
> 
> The Patriot Act would have died in 2006 and again in 2011 if only the Democrat's votes were counted.
> 
> House Vote Roll Call on 2006 Patriot Act Renewal on March 7, *2006*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI...
> 
> *2011*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how did the 'Tea-party 'patriots' vote?
> 
> 122 Tea Party Members of Congress who voted FOR final passage of H.R. 514, reauthorizing the Patriot Act without reform
> 
> 17 Tea Party Members of Congress who voted AGAINST final passage of H.R. 514, reauthorizing the Patriot Act without reform
Click to expand...


That's funny since your Obama Messiah has used it more then bush 

tapatalk post


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Bfgrn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to turn off the Glenn Becks' and David Horrowitz's...it is rotting your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your ignorant response ,citing no fact or reason, is a prime example of what I am talking about, you fucking fascist slimeball.
> 
> I rather enjoy the thought of you libtards one day rotting in hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are septic inside. The hatred that is consuming you has been contrived by well paid propagandists like Beck, Horrowitz and Fox News.
> 
> It is all conservatives have left to rally around. The 'Reagan revolution' failed. It joins the Bolshevik revolution as the two epic failures of the 20th century.
> 
> America is moving on. You will be left behind, and your septic hatred will metastasize then consume.
Click to expand...


Exactly. 

A common denominator of history is that conservative reactionaries always fail, regardless the era, nation, or kingdom; they are motivated by fear, not facts or evidence, and are consequently blind to the truth of an American society becoming more diverse and inclusive  where the best America is yet to come. 

Liberals understand this, attempt to address the problems of the day with facts and evidence, unlike conservatives who for the most part adhere blindly to comforting doctrine and dogma.


----------



## thanatos144

People hate liberals because they are bile a****** should be leaving dead babies and enslaved population

tapatalk post


----------



## Foxfyre

JimBowie1958 said:


> There are really two kinds of liberals; 'classic pro-freedom, enlightened, freedom of expression' liberals I just call classic liberals (like JFK and Truman) and then the kind of 'liberals' we have today that are simply neoMarxists in liberal drag. Horrowitz documents this quite well at his site, being a former leftist himself. The Neocons that now form the GOP elite are former classic liberals (and some Trotskyites) in the Democrat Party who migrated to the GOP once the faux liberals (libtards) took control of the Democrats.
> 
> Classic liberals still exist in the Democratic party, like Bob Beckel and Allan Colmes, but they are regarded as traitors by the libtards for even bothering to carry on a conversation with conservatives.
> 
> The neoMarxist libtards do not believe in reason, or presenting evidence. Why go to the trouble of debate when according to the neoMarxist perspective human behavior is deterministic anyway? So they focus on shout down tactics to silence guest speakers at college campuses, hecklers at political rallies and by being trolling astroturfers on message boards.
> 
> If you have a discussion with a classic liberal, you can exchange ideas and learn something from them, and they from you if the facts are on your side. A great number of classic liberals like Paglia are supporting Phil Robertson in this latest act of leftwing Stalinism here in America, for example. But you can learn jack from the neomarxist libtards because they don't care what you think as long as you agree with them, till you agree then you are the enemy.
> 
> But Paglia is not a 'real' feminist to the hard core, gender-war feminists that control main stream feminism, who are entirely neoMarxist in their approach to gender differences. And by that neoMarxist point of view, like the main stream Marxist view of economics is all about class warfare, of the rich oppressing the workers and EVERYTHING the rich do is evil, the neoMarxist gender-war feminists see no good in men at all and all male-female relationships are male exploitations of women. Now that economic Marxism has been largely discredited, most of these neoMarxists now are more like Fabian socialists similar to Sorros than they are to pure Marxists any more. Combined with their control of national governments or near to that in most western countries, they are now closer to fascism than Marxism any more, and their fascist tactics confirm this, but I think 'neoMarxist' a more accurate term, of the Frankfurt school. Frankfurt School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> These Frankfurt school, neoMarxists are also fond of rewriting history, making Thomas Jefferson into a rapist of black slaves fathering several mixed race children (despite DNA evidence that makes this a known lie), and the Civil War a war to free the slaves and thus the South despicable people fighting solely to keep their slaves down, even if 98% of them owned no slaves at all and traitors to their country (even though very very few of them ever took an oath of loyalty to the USA).
> 
> So the neoMarxists who control the Democratic Party and the leadership of the leftist groups across the board are not interested in discussion, but only in harassment, freely lying when it suits them, ridiculing when it suits them, and never engaging in honest discussion whatsoever. Pogo, Clayton Jones and Dot Com are examples of what I am talking about; rarely ever providing links to support their declarations of Truth, and thinking that what they believe is so obvious that only the very stupid or corrupt or the ignorant could disagree with their axiomatic view of everything.
> 
> Real classic liberals are not hated by anyone. Bertrand Russell and John Kenneth Galbraith for examples are still very well thought of by conservatives.
> 
> But these libtards are a bunch of fascists to the core, plain and simple, and t hat is why 96% of Americans hate them like I do.



You won't get through to the neoMarxist socialist liberals that define the modern American liberal/progressive/statist/leftist/political class.  They love to use the dictionary definitions of liberal to describe themselves, but they seem incapable (or unwilling) to see how they are the polar opposites of those definitions.

You are quite right about the classical liberals and right that Truman and JFK did manifest characteristics of that group.  Our Founding Fathers, to a man, were all classical liberals who not only supported but demanded a small, limited federal government and defined liberty as the people governing themselves and forming whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.  The federal government was never to be given the corrupting power to dispense any form of charity or benefits to any special person, group, or entity nor ability to dictate what sort of society the people were expected to live.   Our modern American liberal friends not only do not embrace such concepts, but attempt to demonize, denigrate, or diminish any who do.

Modern American liberalism is anything but liberal.  It may not be the intention of most, but the mindset and groupthink nevertheless moves us ever closer to total totalitarianism that will give the federal government the ability to do anything it wants to do to anybody.


----------



## Dot Com

good description of the Articles of Confederation Foxy  How well did they work?


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their economic theory's are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't stop there man!!
> 
> They favor gay unions even though gay males account for only about 4% of the population but account for well over half the AIDS cases reported in the US.
> 
> They favor abortion which has killed over 50 million American lives, our greatest resource.
> 
> They favor the NSA police state, even though espousing to oppose the Patriot Act.  Meanwhile, the glibly ignore Obama signing the NDAA which gives the government the right to arrest us without due process and never be seen again.
> 
> 
> And as you say, their economic theories are destructive, and will destroy the Republic, which they will blame on capitalism and the Tea Party.
> 
> I believe that the modern day progressive is one of the four horsemen mentioned in Revelation.  "I have become death".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't let any FACTS disturb your dogma...
> 
> The Patriot Act would have died in 2006 and again in 2011 if only the Democrat's votes were counted.
> 
> House Vote Roll Call on 2006 Patriot Act Renewal on March 7, *2006*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI...
> 
> *2011*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how did the 'Tea-party 'patriots' vote?
> 
> 122 Tea Party Members of Congress who voted FOR final passage of H.R. 514, reauthorizing the Patriot Act without reform
> 
> 17 Tea Party Members of Congress who voted AGAINST final passage of H.R. 514, reauthorizing the Patriot Act without reform
Click to expand...


You are a damn idiot.  The President of the United States of America, is Barrack Hussein Obama, DEMOCRAT.  With the stroke of a pen he could have vetoed the Un-Patriotic Act.  What did he do?  He made damn sure the extension would be for FOUR YEARS THIS TIME.  Linking to 2006 votes because you know the 2011 votes had the demoscum voting even more for the patriot act, is clearly you trying to candy coat your scum bag in chief.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

JimBowie1958 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe classic liberalism, but this does not apply to todays Frankfurt neoMarxists who pose as liberals and who control all the formerly great liberal institutions that once argued FOR freedom of speech instead of its suppression.
> 
> JFK and Truman would have called Obama a dictator, not a great President, but then they were liberals, not neoMarxists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to turn off the Glenn Becks' and David Horrowitz's...it is rotting your brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your ignorant response ,citing no fact or reason, is a prime example of what I am talking about, you fucking fascist slimeball.
> 
> I rather enjoy the thought of you libtards one day rotting in hell.
Click to expand...


You response here kinda flies in the face of another thread in think Politics:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/330561-how-to-test-liberal-tolerance.html

"How to test liberal tolerance...Disagree with them."

Your own intolerance and hurling of vile insults when anyone disagrees with you makes you seem like th every liberals you disagree with.


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't stop there man!!
> 
> They favor gay unions even though gay males account for only about 4% of the population but account for well over half the AIDS cases reported in the US.
> 
> They favor abortion which has killed over 50 million American lives, our greatest resource.
> 
> They favor the NSA police state, even though espousing to oppose the Patriot Act.  Meanwhile, the glibly ignore Obama signing the NDAA which gives the government the right to arrest us without due process and never be seen again.
> 
> 
> And as you say, their economic theories are destructive, and will destroy the Republic, which they will blame on capitalism and the Tea Party.
> 
> I believe that the modern day progressive is one of the four horsemen mentioned in Revelation.  "I have become death".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let any FACTS disturb your dogma...
> 
> The Patriot Act would have died in 2006 and again in 2011 if only the Democrat's votes were counted.
> 
> House Vote Roll Call on 2006 Patriot Act Renewal on March 7, *2006*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI...
> 
> *2011*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how did the 'Tea-party 'patriots' vote?
> 
> 122 Tea Party Members of Congress who voted FOR final passage of H.R. 514, reauthorizing the Patriot Act without reform
> 
> 17 Tea Party Members of Congress who voted AGAINST final passage of H.R. 514, reauthorizing the Patriot Act without reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a damn idiot.  The President of the United States of America, is Barrack Hussein Obama, DEMOCRAT.  With the stroke of a pen he could have vetoed the Un-Patriotic Act.  What did he do?  He made damn sure the extension would be for FOUR YEARS THIS TIME.  Linking to 2006 votes because you know the 2011 votes had the demoscum voting even more for the patriot act, is clearly you trying to candy coat your scum bag in chief.
Click to expand...


Indisputable FACT- the PA would have died in 2006 if only Democrat votes were counted.

Indisputable FACT- the PA would have died in 2011 if only Democrat votes were counted.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bfgrn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let any FACTS disturb your dogma...
> 
> The Patriot Act would have died in 2006 and again in 2011 if only the Democrat's votes were counted.
> 
> House Vote Roll Call on 2006 Patriot Act Renewal on March 7, *2006*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI...
> 
> *2011*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how did the 'Tea-party 'patriots' vote?
> 
> 122 Tea Party Members of Congress who voted FOR final passage of H.R. 514, reauthorizing the Patriot Act without reform
> 
> 17 Tea Party Members of Congress who voted AGAINST final passage of H.R. 514, reauthorizing the Patriot Act without reform
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a damn idiot.  The President of the United States of America, is Barrack Hussein Obama, DEMOCRAT.  With the stroke of a pen he could have vetoed the Un-Patriotic Act.  What did he do?  He made damn sure the extension would be for FOUR YEARS THIS TIME.  Linking to 2006 votes because you know the 2011 votes had the demoscum voting even more for the patriot act, is clearly you trying to candy coat your scum bag in chief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indisputable FACT- the PA would have died in 2006 if only Democrat votes were counted.
> 
> Indisputable FACT- the PA would have died in 2011 if only Democrat votes were counted.
Click to expand...


Indisputable fact - you are a lying piece of shit.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let any FACTS disturb your dogma...
> 
> The Patriot Act would have died in 2006 and again in 2011 if only the Democrat's votes were counted.
> 
> House Vote Roll Call on 2006 Patriot Act Renewal on March 7, *2006*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI...
> 
> *2011*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how did the 'Tea-party 'patriots' vote?
> 
> 122 Tea Party Members of Congress who voted FOR final passage of H.R. 514, reauthorizing the Patriot Act without reform
> 
> 17 Tea Party Members of Congress who voted AGAINST final passage of H.R. 514, reauthorizing the Patriot Act without reform
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a damn idiot.  The President of the United States of America, is Barrack Hussein Obama, DEMOCRAT.  With the stroke of a pen he could have vetoed the Un-Patriotic Act.  What did he do?  He made damn sure the extension would be for FOUR YEARS THIS TIME.  Linking to 2006 votes because you know the 2011 votes had the demoscum voting even more for the patriot act, is clearly you trying to candy coat your scum bag in chief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indisputable FACT- the PA would have died in 2006 if only Democrat votes were counted.
> 
> Indisputable FACT- the PA would have died in 2011 if only Democrat votes were counted.
Click to expand...


The fact Is that you are gullible 

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

RKMBrown said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a damn idiot.  The President of the United States of America, is Barrack Hussein Obama, DEMOCRAT.  With the stroke of a pen he could have vetoed the Un-Patriotic Act.  What did he do?  He made damn sure the extension would be for FOUR YEARS THIS TIME.  Linking to 2006 votes because you know the 2011 votes had the demoscum voting even more for the patriot act, is clearly you trying to candy coat your scum bag in chief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indisputable FACT- the PA would have died in 2006 if only Democrat votes were counted.
> 
> Indisputable FACT- the PA would have died in 2011 if only Democrat votes were counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indisputable fact - you are a lying piece of shit.
Click to expand...


Are you really THAT fucking stupid? 

*2006 Patriot Act Renewal
Democrats
66 Yes
124 No
Bill would have FAILED.


2011 Patriot Act Renewal
Democrats
54 Yes
122 No
Bill would have FAILED.*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

*2006 Patriot Act Renewal
Republicans
213 Yes
13 No
Bill would have PASSED.


2011 Patriot Act Renewal
Republicans
196 Yes
31 No
Bill would have PASSED.*


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indisputable FACT- the PA would have died in 2006 if only Democrat votes were counted.
> 
> Indisputable FACT- the PA would have died in 2011 if only Democrat votes were counted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indisputable fact - you are a lying piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really THAT fucking stupid?
> 
> *2006 Patriot Act Renewal
> Democrats
> 66 Yes
> 124 No
> Bill would have FAILED.
> 
> 
> 2011 Patriot Act Renewal
> Democrats
> 54 Yes
> 122 No
> Bill would have FAILED.*
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *2006 Patriot Act Renewal
> Republicans
> 213 Yes
> 13 No
> Bill would have PASSED.
> 
> 
> 2011 Patriot Act Renewal
> Republicans
> 196 Yes
> 31 No
> Bill would have PASSED.*
Click to expand...


Lol look at you.  So gullible.  Trust me no liberal passes up fascism.  They knew it would pass lol if there was any doubt all liberals would have voted for it 

tapatalk post


----------



## Foxfyre

And it is also a fact that when the Democrats had control of the Senate and House in 2007 and 2008, not one introduced a bill to repeal the Patriot Act, nor did Obama's super majority of Democrats in 2009 and 2010.

One reason to dislike liberals is that they so often twist any facts to make the 'other side' look bad while never ever accepting their own responsibility for the way things are.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> And it is also a fact that when the Democrats had control of the Senate and House in 2007 and 2008, not one introduced a bill to repeal the Patriot Act, nor did Obama's super majority of Democrats in 2009 and 2010.
> 
> One reason to dislike liberals is that they so often twist any facts to make the 'other side' look bad while never ever accepting their own responsibility for the way things are.



The only twisting going on here is that the Patriot Act was renewed twice by Republicans. The Democrats voted it down both times. THOSE are the facts.

And your beloved tea party 'patriots OVERWHELMING vote YES...

*2011 Patriot Act Renewal
tea party patriots
117 Yes
17 No
Bill would have PASSED.*


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bfgrn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are septic inside. The hatred that is consuming you has been contrived by well paid propagandists like Beck, Horrowitz and Fox News.
> 
> It is all conservatives have left to rally around. The 'Reagan revolution' failed. It joins the Bolshevik revolution as the two epic failures of the 20th century.
> 
> America is moving on. You will be left behind, and your septic hatred will metastasize then consume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, I don't even like most of Becks stuff, but you libtard fascists make him look like a hero.
> 
> Eat shit, stupid ****.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He who angers you conquers you.
> E. Kenny
> 
> Hey Einstein, you mentioned how you admire 'liberals' like JFK and Truman...THESE liberals?
> 
> "Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
> President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948
Click to expand...


Lol, you dint anger me, stupid bitch, loll, I talk like this all the time.


----------



## JimBowie1958

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indisputable fact - you are a lying piece of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really THAT fucking stupid?
> 
> *2006 Patriot Act Renewal
> Democrats
> 66 Yes
> 124 No
> Bill would have FAILED.
> 
> 
> 2011 Patriot Act Renewal
> Democrats
> 54 Yes
> 122 No
> Bill would have FAILED.*
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *2006 Patriot Act Renewal
> Republicans
> 213 Yes
> 13 No
> Bill would have PASSED.
> 
> 
> 2011 Patriot Act Renewal
> Republicans
> 196 Yes
> 31 No
> Bill would have PASSED.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol look at you.  So gullible.  Trust me no liberal passes up fascism.  They knew it would pass lol if there was any doubt all liberals would have voted for it
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Yep, they have made no move to repeal it under Obama either.

But the TPM is largely on the wrong side of this and worker rights issues, so I am not TPM, though I sympathize with them on most issues.


----------



## Dot Com

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it is also a fact that when the Democrats had control of the Senate and House in 2007 and 2008, not one introduced a bill to repeal the Patriot Act, nor did Obama's super majority of Democrats in 2009 and 2010.
> 
> One reason to dislike liberals is that they so often twist any facts to make the 'other side' look bad while never ever accepting their own responsibility for the way things are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only twisting going on here is that the Patriot Act was renewed twice by Republicans. The Democrats voted it down both times. THOSE are the facts.
> 
> And your beloved tea party 'patriots OVERWHELMING vote YES...
> 
> *2011 Patriot Act Renewal
> tea party patriots
> 117 Yes
> 17 No
> Bill would have PASSED.*
Click to expand...


OUCH!!!  That had to leave a mark 

We can thank the last Repub President, who had complete control of the gov't from 2000-2006 mind you, for the creation of the ginormous Security State we live in.  Yep, "something" happened, that they had been warned about no less, on that Repub President's watch that precipitated their Republican-led, civil liberty-destroying agenda. Did I mention that the Security State that the repubs created is also ginormously expensive as well?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Dot Com said:


> good description of the Articles of Confederation Foxy  How well did they work?



She and other reactionary conservatives live in a fantasy world comprised of an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with.


----------



## JimBowie1958

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> good description of the Articles of Confederation Foxy  How well did they work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She and other reactionary conservatives live in a fantasy world comprised of an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with.
Click to expand...


No, it is the libtards that live in a fantasy world based on their ideological filters, hence their constant misfires like attacking Paula Dean and Phil Robertson.

And thank God you shit-for-brains are this stupid.


----------



## Bfgrn

JimBowie1958 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> good description of the Articles of Confederation Foxy  How well did they work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She and other reactionary conservatives live in a fantasy world comprised of an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is the libtards that live in a fantasy world based on their ideological filters, hence their constant misfires like attacking Paula Dean and Phil Robertson.
> 
> And thank God you shit-for-brains are this stupid.
Click to expand...


WOW, talk about blind hate and unbelievable ignorance. Deen and Robertson were fired by corporate executives and corporate sponsors. They are victims of a free market economy.

Maybe you folks on the right can pass a law to dictate how corporate sponsors can spend their money.


----------



## RKMBrown

bfgrn said:


> jimbowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> c_clayton_jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> she and other reactionary conservatives live in a fantasy world comprised of an idealized american past that never actually existed to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, it is the libtards that live in a fantasy world based on their ideological filters, hence their constant misfires like attacking paula dean and phil robertson.
> 
> And thank god you shit-for-brains are this stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow, talk about blind hate and unbelievable ignorance. Deen and robertson were fired by corporate executives and corporate sponsors. They are victims of a free market economy.
> 
> Maybe you folks on the right can pass a law to dictate how corporate sponsors can spend their money.
Click to expand...


you are not their sponsor or even a corporate executive, you are nothing but a retard


----------



## JimBowie1958

RKMBrown said:


> bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jimbowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, it is the libtards that live in a fantasy world based on their ideological filters, hence their constant misfires like attacking paula dean and phil robertson.
> 
> And thank god you shit-for-brains are this stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow, talk about blind hate and unbelievable ignorance. Deen and robertson were fired by corporate executives and corporate sponsors. They are victims of a free market economy.
> 
> Maybe you folks on the right can pass a law to dictate how corporate sponsors can spend their money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are not their sponsor or even a corporate executive, you are nothing but a retard
Click to expand...


Well, to be more detailed, he is a stupid, ignorant ass hat and retard.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bfgrn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> She and other reactionary conservatives live in a fantasy world comprised of an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is the libtards that live in a fantasy world based on their ideological filters, hence their constant misfires like attacking Paula Dean and Phil Robertson.
> 
> And thank God you shit-for-brains are this stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW, talk about blind hate and unbelievable ignorance. Deen and Robertson were fired by corporate executives and corporate sponsors. They are victims of a free market economy.
> 
> Maybe you folks on the right can pass a law to dictate how corporate sponsors can spend their money.
Click to expand...


Lol, no one here is talking about passing a law to do anything, stupid shit.


----------



## Bfgrn

JimBowie1958 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is the libtards that live in a fantasy world based on their ideological filters, hence their constant misfires like attacking Paula Dean and Phil Robertson.
> 
> And thank God you shit-for-brains are this stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, talk about blind hate and unbelievable ignorance. Deen and Robertson were fired by corporate executives and corporate sponsors. They are victims of a free market economy.
> 
> Maybe you folks on the right can pass a law to dictate how corporate sponsors can spend their money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol, no one here is talking about passing a law to do anything, stupid shit.
Click to expand...


Just typical right wing but hurt victim-hood...LOL


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Far easier to hate than understand another's point of view. Takes humility and bravery to open our mind to others points of view. Problem is, our brains naturally let go of hate over time so stoking that fire continuously takes a lot of effort. And maintaining hate will ultimately be self-defeating as keeping our minds in a dark place will result in physical ailements and sickness.


----------



## thanatos144

Delta4Embassy said:


> Far easier to hate than understand another's point of view. Takes humility and bravery to open our mind to others points of view. Problem is, our brains naturally let go of hate over time so stoking that fire continuously takes a lot of effort. And maintaining hate will ultimately be self-defeating as keeping our minds in a dark place will result in physical ailements and sickness.



And sometimes people are full of shit and need to be shown as what they are 

tapatalk post


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Or maybe it's like expressed in "Peter Pan" (2003) "A fairy's so small they can only keep one thought at a time in their heads." 

Conservatives are like fairies, and sometimes exactly like fairies.


----------



## Dot Com

Bfgrn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> She and other reactionary conservatives live in a fantasy world comprised of an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is the libtards that live in a fantasy world based on their ideological filters, hence their constant misfires like attacking Paula Dean and Phil Robertson.
> 
> And thank God you shit-for-brains are this stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW, talk about blind hate and unbelievable ignorance. Deen and Robertson were fired by corporate executives and corporate sponsors. They are victims of a free market economy.
> 
> Maybe you folks on the right can pass a law to dictate how corporate sponsors can spend their money.
Click to expand...


Is JimCrowie1958 "for realz"?  He's one of the zaniest, War of Southern Rebellion sympathizing, rw kool aid drinkers on the board


----------



## Wry Catcher

Matthew said:


> Their economic theory's are destructive.



Really? 

Why do you (if you do) believe the rhetoric put forth by the anti-liberal forces?  

If you mean "Tax and Spend" is destructive, how would you characterize "don't tax and spend"?  Isn't that what has been ongoing for decades (deficit spending)?

What evidence is there that the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 stimulated the economy?  That those who have great wealth create jobs, or that providing unemployment income harms the economy?

What evidence is there that the great wealth created by our economic engine trickles down and stimulates the entire economy?  Don't those who receive UE benefits spend every dime they receive in their local community?

What evidence is there which suggests that two sets of standards on income taxation is necessary; why is investment income taxed at a lower rate than income derived by work?

What evidence is there which suggests CEO's and others in executive management earn so much more than the average worker benefits the economy or stock holders?

 *** "the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20.1-to-1 in 1965 and 29.0-to-1 in 1978, grew to 122.6-to-1 in 1995, peaked at 383.4-to-1 in 2000, and was 272.9-to-1 in 2012, far higher than it was in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s."  
[ CEO Pay in 2012 Was Extraordinarily High Relative to Typical Workers and Other High Earners | Economic Policy Institute ]


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Conservatives hate liberals because the dumbest liberal is still smarter than the smartest conservative.  So dumb in fact, you just watch for their replies. Proof positive how easily their manipulated. A smart person would ignore the bait and move on, but not conservatives.


----------



## thanatos144

Delta4Embassy said:


> Conservatives hate liberals because the dumbest liberal is still smarter than the smartest conservative.  So dumb in fact, you just watch for their replies. Proof positive how easily their manipulated. A smart person would ignore the bait and move on, but not conservatives.



You keep telling yourself that squiggy


----------



## JimBowie1958

thanatos144 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate liberals because the dumbest liberal is still smarter than the smartest conservative.  So dumb in fact, you just watch for their replies. Proof positive how easily their manipulated. A smart person would ignore the bait and move on, but not conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep telling yourself that squiggy
Click to expand...


I know, I mean how much dumber can you get than people who want to vote in favor of a bill that no one has read, the ensuing law that no few can actually obey, and that is going to make the stated aim of extending more insurance coverage to those without it a total joke?

Fewer people have health insurance now as insurers cancel policies across the whole country, exactly the opposite of what they say they are trying to do.

Oh, yeah, libtards are so fucking smart it makes the eyes bleed.


----------



## norwegen

Delta4Embassy said:


> Conservatives hate liberals because the dumbest liberal is still smarter than the smartest conservative.  So dumb in fact, you just watch for their replies. Proof positive how easily *their* manipulated. A smart person would ignore the bait and move on, but not conservatives.


_they're_


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Truthseeker420 said:


> I don't want to get into detail because then I would be accused of being hateful toward cons. But while liberals view the world with shades of gray, conservatives view the world as black vs white,us vs them,good vs evil.



liberals are evil immoral scumbags the flag they honor is the white flag of surrender.

I say give them the black flag.


----------



## American_Jihad

*25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals*

John Hawkins | May 11, 2013 

...


25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals - John Hawkins - Page full


----------



## Ernie S.

norwegen said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate liberals because the dumbest liberal is still smarter than the smartest conservative.  So dumb in fact, you just watch for their replies. Proof positive how easily *their* manipulated. A smart person would ignore the bait and move on, but not conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> _they're_
Click to expand...


People who call others dumb should be more careful. Misuse of there/their/they're just makes him look... well, dumb.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Delta4Embassy said:


> Or maybe it's like expressed in "Peter Pan" (2003) "A fairy's so small they can only keep one thought at a time in their heads."
> 
> Conservatives are like fairies, and sometimes exactly like fairies.



Lol, you can say what you want, but you libtards never DEMONSTRATE you can keep more than one thought in your head at a time, much less actually prove the facts are on your side.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Ernie S. said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate liberals because the dumbest liberal is still smarter than the smartest conservative.  So dumb in fact, you just watch for their replies. Proof positive how easily *their* manipulated. A smart person would ignore the bait and move on, but not conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> _they're_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who call others dumb should be more careful. Misuse of there/their/they're just makes him look... well, dumb.
Click to expand...


I knew a turret lathe set up man who was a borderline genius when it came to working on car engines. And he had the kindest heart in the world unless you disrespected the guy.

He came in a little late to work one day, and explained he had stopped to help some guy with a broken down engine. When he was looking at the guys engine, he observed that the man had no oil showing on the dipstick. It was dry as a bone.

The machinist said, 'You car aint got no oil.'

The driver said, 'Aint is not a word.'

The response was, 'Grammar aint going to get your damned car working.' And he got back in his truck and left.

Good grammar is fine and all, but having some common sense and knowing how to think critically are way more important, IMO. And with the way the internet/electronic use of our language is evolving, I suspect that what we think of as good grammar English might become 'Formal English' grammar and almost no rules for what is in common use.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Thanks to my conservative friends for proving me right. You guys really can't help yourselves can you? Some kind of political Tourette's or something.


----------



## thanatos144

Delta4Embassy said:


> Thanks to my conservative friends for proving me right. You guys really can't help yourselves can you? Some kind of political Tourette's or something.



Yea it is all the free time we have from not hugging trees and not supporting pedophiles and cop killers.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Delta4Embassy said:


> Thanks to my conservative friends for proving me right. You guys really can't help yourselves can you? Some kind of political Tourette's or something.



I cannot resist calling an idiot an idiot. If the shoe fits wear it then, moron.


----------



## Dragonlady

JimBowie1958 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to my conservative friends for proving me right. You guys really can't help yourselves can you? Some kind of political Tourette's or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot resist calling an idiot an idiot. If the shoe fits wear it then, moron.
Click to expand...


What's that old expression:  "It takes one to know one".

Those who constantly insult other posters are really telling us that they've got nothing. 

If you can't refute a post using logic or facts, you resort to insults. 

The US is the only country of any importance in the world where right wing conservatives hold any power at all. And since the conservatives took over in 1980, poverty has increased at an alarming rate, wages for the working classes have stagnated, and more people are dependent on government assistance than at any time in history. 

Canada has a Conservative government, but our Conservatives are more liberal than your Democrats. 

Your right wing policies have been an epic fail and after 30 years of conservative economic policies, your country is left with high unemployment, stagnant wages, and a struggling middle class.  And still you cling to this failed ideology. 

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Reagan ultimately realized that cutting taxes doesn't help the economy in the long run and reversed all of his tax cuts. 

Bush's tax cuts, wars and unfunded social programs have mired the country in debt, poverty and unemployment. 

What will it take for you to recognize that right wing economics are destroying your economy?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Dragonlady said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to my conservative friends for proving me right. You guys really can't help yourselves can you? Some kind of political Tourette's or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot resist calling an idiot an idiot. If the shoe fits wear it then, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's that old expression:  "It takes one to know one".
> 
> Those who constantly insult other posters are really telling us that they've got nothing.
> 
> If you can't refute a post using logic or facts, you resort to insults.
> 
> The US is the only country of any importance in the world where right wing conservatives hold any power at all. And since the conservatives took over in 1980, poverty has increased at an alarming rate, wages for the working classes have stagnated, and more people are dependent on government assistance than at any time in history.
> 
> Canada has a Conservative government, but our Conservatives are more liberal than your Democrats.
> 
> Your right wing policies have been an epic fail and after 30 years of conservative economic policies, your country is left with high unemployment, stagnant wages, and a struggling middle class.  And still you cling to this failed ideology.
> 
> The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Reagan ultimately realized that cutting taxes doesn't help the economy in the long run and reversed all of his tax cuts.
> 
> Bush's tax cuts, wars and unfunded social programs have mired the country in debt, poverty and unemployment.
> 
> What will it take for you to recognize that right wing economics are destroying your economy?
Click to expand...


  Ohhhhh..Caaanaaaa duh! Where a case of beer and every other imaginable product short of sawdust costs twice what we pay. I'll pass....


----------



## Foxfyre

JimBowie1958 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe it's like expressed in "Peter Pan" (2003) "A fairy's so small they can only keep one thought at a time in their heads."
> 
> Conservatives are like fairies, and sometimes exactly like fairies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, you can say what you want, but you libtards never DEMONSTRATE you can keep more than one thought in your head at a time, much less actually prove the facts are on your side.
Click to expand...


That's my main complaint with the modern American liberal.  With extremely few exceptions, they are unable to focus on a concept and discuss it.  They will invariably veer off into straw men, non sequitur, throw in red herrings, and will attack the messenger and getting them to actually address a topic is much much worse than herding cats.  If I (or anybody else) tries to keep them on a topic they don't like, I/you can count on:

1.  Being called a whole bunch of unattractive names
2.  Being accused of all sorts of thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and wants that hadn't occured to me/us
3.  Having the discussion immediately diverted to something totally unrelated
4.  Being accused of statements I/we didn't make and having statements I/we did make, and that cannot be refuted, ignored.  And then later on in the thread we will be accused of saying what we didn't say and we will be accused of not saying what we have already said.  (I think there's something in the water they drink that causes selective reading or cognitive reading dysfunction.)
5.  Never having the actual concept of the OP addressed head on with any kind of objective or comprehensive argument expressed.
6.  Plus a whole lot of accusations of 'you do it too' or 'others do it too' that is intended to totally excuse them from all sins.

(I wish we could just all memorize the list and throw out a number each time it becomes pertinent.  Sure would save a lot of typing.)

I am of course writing this in the wake of a good deal of frustration and resignation due to recent experience that it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion with a very high percentage of the leftists/liberals/progressives/statists/political class at USMB.

At the same time I have a lot of liberal friends here at USMB that I adore and count among my closest friends here.  So it isn't a blanket condemnation.  But for the rest, it makes them damn hard to like, much less love.


----------



## American_Jihad

Delta4Embassy said:


> Or maybe it's like expressed in "Peter Pan" (2003) "A fairy's so small they can only keep one thought at a time in their heads."
> 
> Conservatives are like fairies, and sometimes exactly like fairies.







http://imageshack.us/a/img856/9846/6pca.gif


----------



## JimBowie1958

Dragonlady said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to my conservative friends for proving me right. You guys really can't help yourselves can you? Some kind of political Tourette's or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot resist calling an idiot an idiot. If the shoe fits wear it then, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's that old expression:  "It takes one to know one".
Click to expand...


Lol, the oldest libtard knee jerk response on the planet. 

No, dimwit, I can identify a thief without being a thief, roflmao.



Dragonlady said:


> Those who constantly insult other posters are really telling us that they've got nothing.



No, they tell us they 'got nothing' if they indeed 'got nothing'. The language is beside the point, Sherlock.



Dragonlady said:


> If you can't refute a post using logic or facts, you resort to insults.



Or give them a double bonus of shoveling out both.



Dragonlady said:


> The US is the only country of any importance in the world where right wing conservatives hold any power at all.



What a racist thing to say. the governments of Russia, Thailand etc are just of no importance? Racist windbag.



Dragonlady said:


> And since the conservatives took over in 1980, poverty has increased at an alarming rate, wages for the working classes have stagnated, and more people are dependent on government assistance than at any time in history.
> 
> Canada has a Conservative government, but our Conservatives are more liberal than your Democrats.



If your conservatives are to the left of our Dimbocraps then no wonder you have problems.

The rest of your tedious bullshit deleted for the sake of electrons.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Foxfyre said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe it's like expressed in "Peter Pan" (2003) "A fairy's so small they can only keep one thought at a time in their heads."
> 
> Conservatives are like fairies, and sometimes exactly like fairies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, you can say what you want, but you libtards never DEMONSTRATE you can keep more than one thought in your head at a time, much less actually prove the facts are on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's my main complaint with the modern American liberal.  With extremely few exceptions, they are unable to focus on a concept and discuss it.  They will invariably veer off into straw men, non sequitur, throw in red herrings, and will attack the messenger and getting them to actually address a topic is much much worse than herding cats.  If I (or anybody else) tries to keep them on a topic they don't like, I/you can count on:
> 
> 1.  Being called a whole bunch of unattractive names
> 2.  Being accused of all sorts of thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and wants that hadn't occured to me/us
> 3.  Having the discussion immediately diverted to something totally unrelated
> 4.  Being accused of statements I/we didn't make and having statements I/we did make, and that cannot be refuted, ignored.  And then later on in the thread we will be accused of saying what we didn't say and we will be accused of not saying what we have already said.  (I think there's something in the water they drink that causes selective reading or cognitive reading dysfunction.)
> 5.  Never having the actual concept of the OP addressed head on with any kind of objective or comprehensive argument expressed.
> 6.  Plus a whole lot of accusations of 'you do it too' or 'others do it too' that is intended to totally excuse them from all sins.
> 
> (I wish we could just all memorize the list and throw out a number each time it becomes pertinent.  Sure would save a lot of typing.)
> 
> I am of course writing this in the wake of a good deal of frustration and resignation due to recent experience that it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion with a very high percentage of the leftists/liberals/progressives/statists/political class at USMB.
> 
> At the same time I have a lot of liberal friends here at USMB that I adore and count among my closest friends here.  So it isn't a blanket condemnation.  But for the rest, it makes them damn hard to like, much less love.
Click to expand...


I agree. My use of 'bad' language has a lot to do with my time in the infantry and also reflects the lack of patience I have with these embiciles.

I swear George Soros must pay these idjits by the post.

But there are some good liberals, classic liberals, that will discuss things and engage with reason and supported fact. But they are far too influenced by the Jacobin trolls and either leave in frustration at a ruined thread or apparently feel that they are betraying their own side in some way.

Bob Beckel, Juan Williams and Alan Colmes are good examples of classic liberals who have strayed way off to the leftward fringe as has the whole Democratic Party. While Beckel remains a Christian, (dunno about Williams) and I pray for his soul, Colmes seems to have swallowed the whole anti-Christian playbook. But all three men will use reason and bring facts to the table. Beckel is one of the reasons I will actually watch the Five, Williams seems to rarely be on it, as I do like the others too especially Gutfeld, but they engage in more discussion than most shows of that sort.


----------



## Foxfyre

JimBowie1958 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, you can say what you want, but you libtards never DEMONSTRATE you can keep more than one thought in your head at a time, much less actually prove the facts are on your side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's my main complaint with the modern American liberal.  With extremely few exceptions, they are unable to focus on a concept and discuss it.  They will invariably veer off into straw men, non sequitur, throw in red herrings, and will attack the messenger and getting them to actually address a topic is much much worse than herding cats.  If I (or anybody else) tries to keep them on a topic they don't like, I/you can count on:
> 
> 1.  Being called a whole bunch of unattractive names
> 2.  Being accused of all sorts of thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and wants that hadn't occured to me/us
> 3.  Having the discussion immediately diverted to something totally unrelated
> 4.  Being accused of statements I/we didn't make and having statements I/we did make, and that cannot be refuted, ignored.  And then later on in the thread we will be accused of saying what we didn't say and we will be accused of not saying what we have already said.  (I think there's something in the water they drink that causes selective reading or cognitive reading dysfunction.)
> 5.  Never having the actual concept of the OP addressed head on with any kind of objective or comprehensive argument expressed.
> 6.  Plus a whole lot of accusations of 'you do it too' or 'others do it too' that is intended to totally excuse them from all sins.
> 
> (I wish we could just all memorize the list and throw out a number each time it becomes pertinent.  Sure would save a lot of typing.)
> 
> I am of course writing this in the wake of a good deal of frustration and resignation due to recent experience that it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion with a very high percentage of the leftists/liberals/progressives/statists/political class at USMB.
> 
> At the same time I have a lot of liberal friends here at USMB that I adore and count among my closest friends here.  So it isn't a blanket condemnation.  But for the rest, it makes them damn hard to like, much less love.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. My use of 'bad' language has a lot to do with my time in the infantry and also reflects the lack of patience I have with these embiciles.
> 
> I swear George Soros must pay these idjits by the post.
> 
> But there are some good liberals, classic liberals, that will discuss things and engage with reason and supported fact. But they are far too influenced by the Jacobin trolls and either leave in frustration at a ruined thread or apparently feel that they are betraying their own side in some way.
> 
> Bob Beckel, Juan Williams and Alan Colmes are good examples of classic liberals who have strayed way off to the leftward fringe as has the whole Democratic Party. While Beckel remains a Christian, (dunno about Williams) and I pray for his soul, Colmes seems to have swallowed the whole anti-Christian playbook. But all three men will use reason and bring facts to the table. Beckel is one of the reasons I will actually watch the Five, Williams seems to rarely be on it, as I do like the others too especially Gutfeld, but they engage in more discussion than most shows of that sort.
Click to expand...


I like Beckel too.  Colmes not so much as I find him far too strident and prejudicial against anybody who disagrees with him, but that is based on my experience with him and his radio program from years past, not so much in his role on Fox News.  Be careful about characterizing these guys as classical liberals though as classical liberals are what the Founders were:  a people who believed in a nation in which the federal government would be small, limited, and restricted and the people would govern themselves and form themselves into whatever sort of societies they wished to have.

Among some of my favorite modern liberals have been Michael Kinsley, Molly Ivans, William Raspberry, Camille Paglia, and even Maureen Dowd has had her moments.  I have regularly read them all because though they all support/supported concepts and principles I can't agree with or endorse, all are brutally honest, fair minded, and non partisan in a way that is very rare among liberals.  They all have made me think, re-evaluate my position on this or that, and see things through a different perspective.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Foxfyre said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's my main complaint with the modern American liberal.  With extremely few exceptions, they are unable to focus on a concept and discuss it.  They will invariably veer off into straw men, non sequitur, throw in red herrings, and will attack the messenger and getting them to actually address a topic is much much worse than herding cats.  If I (or anybody else) tries to keep them on a topic they don't like, I/you can count on:
> 
> 1.  Being called a whole bunch of unattractive names
> 2.  Being accused of all sorts of thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and wants that hadn't occured to me/us
> 3.  Having the discussion immediately diverted to something totally unrelated
> 4.  Being accused of statements I/we didn't make and having statements I/we did make, and that cannot be refuted, ignored.  And then later on in the thread we will be accused of saying what we didn't say and we will be accused of not saying what we have already said.  (I think there's something in the water they drink that causes selective reading or cognitive reading dysfunction.)
> 5.  Never having the actual concept of the OP addressed head on with any kind of objective or comprehensive argument expressed.
> 6.  Plus a whole lot of accusations of 'you do it too' or 'others do it too' that is intended to totally excuse them from all sins.
> 
> (I wish we could just all memorize the list and throw out a number each time it becomes pertinent.  Sure would save a lot of typing.)
> 
> I am of course writing this in the wake of a good deal of frustration and resignation due to recent experience that it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion with a very high percentage of the leftists/liberals/progressives/statists/political class at USMB.
> 
> At the same time I have a lot of liberal friends here at USMB that I adore and count among my closest friends here.  So it isn't a blanket condemnation.  But for the rest, it makes them damn hard to like, much less love.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. My use of 'bad' language has a lot to do with my time in the infantry and also reflects the lack of patience I have with these embiciles.
> 
> I swear George Soros must pay these idjits by the post.
> 
> But there are some good liberals, classic liberals, that will discuss things and engage with reason and supported fact. But they are far too influenced by the Jacobin trolls and either leave in frustration at a ruined thread or apparently feel that they are betraying their own side in some way.
> 
> Bob Beckel, Juan Williams and Alan Colmes are good examples of classic liberals who have strayed way off to the leftward fringe as has the whole Democratic Party. While Beckel remains a Christian, (dunno about Williams) and I pray for his soul, Colmes seems to have swallowed the whole anti-Christian playbook. But all three men will use reason and bring facts to the table. Beckel is one of the reasons I will actually watch the Five, Williams seems to rarely be on it, as I do like the others too especially Gutfeld, but they engage in more discussion than most shows of that sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like Beckel too.  Colmes not so much as I find him far too strident and prejudicial against anybody who disagrees with him, but that is based on my experience with him and his radio program from years past, not so much in his role on Fox News.  Be careful about characterizing these guys as classical liberals though as classical liberals are what the Founders were:  a people who believed in a nation in which the federal government would be small, limited, and restricted and the people would govern themselves and form themselves into whatever sort of societies they wished to have.
> 
> Among some of my favorite modern liberals have been Michael Kinsley, Molly Ivans, William Raspberry, Camille Paglia, and even Maureen Dowd has had her moments.  I have regularly read them all because though they all support/supported concepts and principles I can't agree with or endorse, all are brutally honest, fair minded, and non partisan in a way that is very rare among liberals.  They all have made me think, re-evaluate my position on this or that, and see things through a different perspective.
Click to expand...


Yeah, by 'classic liberal' I mean the Galbraith, Schlessinger, Russel type who are good to get you to think about what you believe and maybe reassess things from time to time.

Some of Galbraith's debates with William F. Buckley were classics and well worth watching.

So you passed on Juan Williams; got issues with him or just an over sight?


----------



## Foxfyre

JimBowie1958 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. My use of 'bad' language has a lot to do with my time in the infantry and also reflects the lack of patience I have with these embiciles.
> 
> I swear George Soros must pay these idjits by the post.
> 
> But there are some good liberals, classic liberals, that will discuss things and engage with reason and supported fact. But they are far too influenced by the Jacobin trolls and either leave in frustration at a ruined thread or apparently feel that they are betraying their own side in some way.
> 
> Bob Beckel, Juan Williams and Alan Colmes are good examples of classic liberals who have strayed way off to the leftward fringe as has the whole Democratic Party. While Beckel remains a Christian, (dunno about Williams) and I pray for his soul, Colmes seems to have swallowed the whole anti-Christian playbook. But all three men will use reason and bring facts to the table. Beckel is one of the reasons I will actually watch the Five, Williams seems to rarely be on it, as I do like the others too especially Gutfeld, but they engage in more discussion than most shows of that sort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like Beckel too.  Colmes not so much as I find him far too strident and prejudicial against anybody who disagrees with him, but that is based on my experience with him and his radio program from years past, not so much in his role on Fox News.  Be careful about characterizing these guys as classical liberals though as classical liberals are what the Founders were:  a people who believed in a nation in which the federal government would be small, limited, and restricted and the people would govern themselves and form themselves into whatever sort of societies they wished to have.
> 
> Among some of my favorite modern liberals have been Michael Kinsley, Molly Ivans, William Raspberry, Camille Paglia, and even Maureen Dowd has had her moments.  I have regularly read them all because though they all support/supported concepts and principles I can't agree with or endorse, all are brutally honest, fair minded, and non partisan in a way that is very rare among liberals.  They all have made me think, re-evaluate my position on this or that, and see things through a different perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, by 'classic liberal' I mean the Galbraith, Schlessinger, Russel type who are good to get you to think about what you believe and maybe reassess things from time to time.
> 
> Some of Galbraith's debates with William F. Buckley were classics and well worth watching.
> 
> So you passed on Juan Williams; got issues with him or just an over sight?
Click to expand...


An oversight.  I do like Juan Williams.  And there are others I could have added to my list.  I respect any liberal who can provide a reasoned rationale for why they hold the opinions they do and who can articulate a reasoned argument for a concept or point of view without trashing somebody else, and most especially I appreciate those who apply the same standards to everybody and not just their ideologically aligned colleagues.   Alas such liberals are very rare these days.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Foxfyre said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like Beckel too.  Colmes not so much as I find him far too strident and prejudicial against anybody who disagrees with him, but that is based on my experience with him and his radio program from years past, not so much in his role on Fox News.  Be careful about characterizing these guys as classical liberals though as classical liberals are what the Founders were:  a people who believed in a nation in which the federal government would be small, limited, and restricted and the people would govern themselves and form themselves into whatever sort of societies they wished to have.
> 
> Among some of my favorite modern liberals have been Michael Kinsley, Molly Ivans, William Raspberry, Camille Paglia, and even Maureen Dowd has had her moments.  I have regularly read them all because though they all support/supported concepts and principles I can't agree with or endorse, all are brutally honest, fair minded, and non partisan in a way that is very rare among liberals.  They all have made me think, re-evaluate my position on this or that, and see things through a different perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, by 'classic liberal' I mean the Galbraith, Schlessinger, Russel type who are good to get you to think about what you believe and maybe reassess things from time to time.
> 
> Some of Galbraith's debates with William F. Buckley were classics and well worth watching.
> 
> So you passed on Juan Williams; got issues with him or just an over sight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An oversight.  I do like Juan Williams.  And there are others I could have added to my list.  I respect any liberal who can provide a reasoned rationale for why they hold the opinions they do and who can articulate a reasoned argument for a concept or point of view without trashing somebody else, and most especially I appreciate those who apply the same standards to everybody and not just their ideologically aligned colleagues.   Alas such liberals are very rare these days.
Click to expand...


Very, and despite appearances not all of them work at FOX, lol.


----------



## American_Jihad

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkePZUhUiWQ]The Best Of Left-Wing Hate From 2010 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## American_Jihad

*The Lefts Disdain for the Will to Live*

January 15, 2014 by Arnold Ahlert






Lisa Bonchek Adams is a 43-year-old woman with three children and Stage IV metastatic breast cancer. In the seven years since she was first diagnosed, Adams has dedicated an enormous amount of time and energy to chronicling her battle with the disease, via hundreds of thousands of tweets and a blog. In two columns that offer great insight into the progressive mindset, former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller, and his wife, Emma Gilbey Keller, have taken Adams to task for having the audacity to prolong her own life, and publicly write about her efforts to do so. As far as these two are concerned, Adams isnt dying quickly enough, or privately enough, to suit their sensibilities.

In a column titled Heroic Measures, Bill Keller acknowledges that Adams has an audience of several thousand who are caught up in her unsparing narrative of mastectomy, chemotherapy, radiation, biopsies and scans, pumps and drains and catheters, grueling drug trials and grim side effects, along with her posts on how to tell the children, potshots at the breast cancer lobby, poetry and resolute calls to persevere. Bill further notes that lately, due to the fact that the cancer has colonized just about every part of Adams body with the exception of her brain, her optimism has become a little less unassailable.

One might be tempted to wonder what purpose might be served by any criticism of any cancer patients optimism, but Keller is more than up to the task:

...

Few Americans these days take issue with the idea that people should be allowed to die with dignity if they close to do so. Yet as the Liverpool Pathway scandal has shown, such euphemisms can become extremely flexible  especially when such flexibility is tied to cash incentives. In America, nothing happens without a cost-benefit analysis, writes Bill Keller. That is exactly the future ObamaCare, replete with its Independent Payment Advisory Board, portends.

The Left?s Disdain for the Will to Live | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## JimBowie1958

American_Jihad said:


> *The Lefts Disdain for the Will to Live*
> 
> January 15, 2014 by Arnold Ahlert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lisa Bonchek Adams is a 43-year-old woman with three children and Stage IV metastatic breast cancer. In the seven years since she was first diagnosed, Adams has dedicated an enormous amount of time and energy to chronicling her battle with the disease, via hundreds of thousands of tweets and a blog. In two columns that offer great insight into the progressive mindset, former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller, and his wife, Emma Gilbey Keller, have taken Adams to task for having the audacity to prolong her own life, and publicly write about her efforts to do so. As far as these two are concerned, Adams isnt dying quickly enough, or privately enough, to suit their sensibilities.
> 
> In a column titled Heroic Measures, Bill Keller acknowledges that Adams has an audience of several thousand who are caught up in her unsparing narrative of mastectomy, chemotherapy, radiation, biopsies and scans, pumps and drains and catheters, grueling drug trials and grim side effects, along with her posts on how to tell the children, potshots at the breast cancer lobby, poetry and resolute calls to persevere. Bill further notes that lately, due to the fact that the cancer has colonized just about every part of Adams body with the exception of her brain, her optimism has become a little less unassailable.
> 
> One might be tempted to wonder what purpose might be served by any criticism of any cancer patients optimism, but Keller is more than up to the task:
> 
> ...
> 
> Few Americans these days take issue with the idea that people should be allowed to die with dignity if they close to do so. Yet as the Liverpool Pathway scandal has shown, such euphemisms can become extremely flexible  especially when such flexibility is tied to cash incentives. In America, nothing happens without a cost-benefit analysis, writes Bill Keller. That is exactly the future ObamaCare, replete with its Independent Payment Advisory Board, portends.
> 
> The Left?s Disdain for the Will to Live | FrontPage Magazine



George Bernard Shaw, a classic 1930's libtard

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBZsTf6oLfY]George Bernard Shaw Justify Yourself.mpg - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JimBowie1958

Too many people have had to live and flee from under libtard rule for no one to hate them.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0fHMljbvLE&list=PLC6514882D640F457]Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw Praises Mussolini, other dictators - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JimBowie1958

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R7jL0_JANY&list=PLC6514882D640F457]George Bernard Shaw says to abolish the Constitution (INFOWARS) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre

Jim Bowie, find another term to describe what you call 'classic liberals'.  It is too easy to confuse that with 'classical liberals' who were, as the Founders were, and are now the 180 degree antithesis of what you describe as 'classic liberals'.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> Jim Bowie, find another term to describe what you call 'classic liberals'.  It is too easy to confuse that with 'classical liberals' who were, as the Founders were, and are now the 180 degree antithesis of what you describe as 'classic liberals'.



Communists are the polar opposite of classic liberals. George Bernard Shaw was a Communist, and an evil SOB.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Bowie, find another term to describe what you call 'classic liberals'.  It is too easy to confuse that with 'classical liberals' who were, as the Founders were, and are now the 180 degree antithesis of what you describe as 'classic liberals'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Communists are the polar opposite of classic liberals. George Bernard Shaw was a Communist, and an evil SOB.
Click to expand...


Socialism, totalitarianism, and other authoritative political opportunisim evenmoreso.  At least Marxist communism claims a goal of arriving at a utopian existence in which no formal government is necessary.  That is closer to classical liberalsim and its concept of self governance than those who promote an all-powerful authoritarian central government.  Of course pure communism is absurd on the face of it because human nature just isn't wired that way and no nation striving for communism ever got past the brutal, authoritarian stage of government.  Government via social contract as promoted in classical liberalism has proved its value.  Unfortunately modern liberalism hates that concept because they can't have absolute power over everybody else.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

their's a cloud over the land! But liberals  made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say, Shit, its raining!


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Bowie, find another term to describe what you call 'classic liberals'.  It is too easy to confuse that with 'classical liberals' who were, as the Founders were, and are now the 180 degree antithesis of what you describe as 'classic liberals'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Communists are the polar opposite of classic liberals. George Bernard Shaw was a Communist, and an evil SOB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism, totalitarianism, and other authoritative political opportunisim evenmoreso.  At least Marxist communism claims a goal of arriving at a utopian existence in which no formal government is necessary.  That is closer to classical liberalsim and its concept of self governance than those who promote an all-powerful authoritarian central government.  Of course pure communism is absurd on the face of it because human nature just isn't wired that way and no nation striving for communism ever got past the brutal, authoritarian stage of government.  Government via social contract as promoted in classical liberalism has proved its value.  Unfortunately modern liberalism hates that concept because they can't have absolute power over everybody else.
Click to expand...


Well said Fox... your move to the libertarian party way of thinking appears to be accelerating.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communists are the polar opposite of classic liberals. George Bernard Shaw was a Communist, and an evil SOB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism, totalitarianism, and other authoritative political opportunisim evenmoreso.  At least Marxist communism claims a goal of arriving at a utopian existence in which no formal government is necessary.  That is closer to classical liberalsim and its concept of self governance than those who promote an all-powerful authoritarian central government.  Of course pure communism is absurd on the face of it because human nature just isn't wired that way and no nation striving for communism ever got past the brutal, authoritarian stage of government.  Government via social contract as promoted in classical liberalism has proved its value.  Unfortunately modern liberalism hates that concept because they can't have absolute power over everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well said Fox... your move to the libertarian party way of thinking appears to be accelerating.
Click to expand...


Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am not at all closer to the Libertarian Party way of thinking, nor do I intend to be when it itself often doesn't understand the principles of classical liberalism which is true libertarianism.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism, totalitarianism, and other authoritative political opportunisim evenmoreso.  At least Marxist communism claims a goal of arriving at a utopian existence in which no formal government is necessary.  That is closer to classical liberalsim and its concept of self governance than those who promote an all-powerful authoritarian central government.  Of course pure communism is absurd on the face of it because human nature just isn't wired that way and no nation striving for communism ever got past the brutal, authoritarian stage of government.  Government via social contract as promoted in classical liberalism has proved its value.  Unfortunately modern liberalism hates that concept because they can't have absolute power over everybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Fox... your move to the libertarian party way of thinking appears to be accelerating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am not at all closer to the Libertarian Party way of thinking, nor do I intend to be when it itself often doesn't understand the principles of classical liberalism which is true libertarianism.
Click to expand...

Can you name one, just one, portion of the libertarian platform that is not based entirely on classical liberalism?  If so I'll eat my hat.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Fox... your move to the libertarian party way of thinking appears to be accelerating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am not at all closer to the Libertarian Party way of thinking, nor do I intend to be when it itself often doesn't understand the principles of classical liberalism which is true libertarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you name one, just one, portion of the libertarian platform that is not based entirely on classical liberalism?  If so I'll eat my hat.
Click to expand...


Go down the list of the Libertarian Party 2012 platform.  On issue after issue it assumes that the federal government is the agent to demand liberty and if we elect Bob Barr, he'll make it happen.  That is as wrong as the GOP or Democratic Party assuming the federal government is the agent to promise or accomplish much of anything.

The classical liberal sees the federal government as having Constitutional Authority to secure our rights, implement just enough regulation to facilitate us operating as one nation, and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have, however we wish to do that.  

The Libertarian Party philosophy pretty much opposes that concept as it would have all people being required to have a society that the Libertarians (large L) want to have.  Which is why the Libertarian Party mostly opposes those communities who want to regulate guns or allow a creche on the courthouse lawn or put crosses on the graves of fallen warriors or ban drugs.  Liberty must include the ability to be 'narrow minded' and/or organize a religious or restrictive society as much as a society in which every person decides for himself/herself and there is little or no law at all.  Unless we are free to organize the society we want to live in--whether we think that is good or bad-- there is no liberty at all.  You still have a despot or monarch or dictator or totalitarianism dictating who and what we are and how we are required to live.


----------



## American_Jihad

JimBowie1958 said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Lefts Disdain for the Will to Live*
> 
> January 15, 2014 by Arnold Ahlert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lisa Bonchek Adams is a 43-year-old woman with three children and Stage IV metastatic breast cancer. In the seven years since she was first diagnosed, Adams has dedicated an enormous amount of time and energy to chronicling her battle with the disease, via hundreds of thousands of tweets and a blog. In two columns that offer great insight into the progressive mindset, former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller, and his wife, Emma Gilbey Keller, have taken Adams to task for having the audacity to prolong her own life, and publicly write about her efforts to do so. As far as these two are concerned, Adams isnt dying quickly enough, or privately enough, to suit their sensibilities.
> 
> In a column titled Heroic Measures, Bill Keller acknowledges that Adams has an audience of several thousand who are caught up in her unsparing narrative of mastectomy, chemotherapy, radiation, biopsies and scans, pumps and drains and catheters, grueling drug trials and grim side effects, along with her posts on how to tell the children, potshots at the breast cancer lobby, poetry and resolute calls to persevere. Bill further notes that lately, due to the fact that the cancer has colonized just about every part of Adams body with the exception of her brain, her optimism has become a little less unassailable.
> 
> One might be tempted to wonder what purpose might be served by any criticism of any cancer patients optimism, but Keller is more than up to the task:
> 
> ...
> 
> Few Americans these days take issue with the idea that people should be allowed to die with dignity if they close to do so. Yet as the Liverpool Pathway scandal has shown, such euphemisms can become extremely flexible  especially when such flexibility is tied to cash incentives. In America, nothing happens without a cost-benefit analysis, writes Bill Keller. That is exactly the future ObamaCare, replete with its Independent Payment Advisory Board, portends.
> 
> The Left?s Disdain for the Will to Live | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Bernard Shaw, a classic 1930's libtard
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBZsTf6oLfY]George Bernard Shaw Justify Yourself.mpg - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Let's not forget... https://www.google.com/search?q=mar...14D4BQ&ved=0CAsQ_AUoAw&biw=1024&bih=588&dpr=1

...


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am not at all closer to the Libertarian Party way of thinking, nor do I intend to be when it itself often doesn't understand the principles of classical liberalism which is true libertarianism.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name one, just one, portion of the libertarian platform that is not based entirely on classical liberalism?  If so I'll eat my hat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go down the list of the Libertarian Party 2012 platform.  On issue after issue it assumes that the federal government is the agent to demand liberty and if we elect Bob Barr, he'll make it happen.  That is as wrong as the GOP or Democratic Party assuming the federal government is the agent to promise or accomplish much of anything.
> 
> The classical liberal sees the federal government as having Constitutional Authority to secure our rights, implement just enough regulation to facilitate us operating as one nation, and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have, however we wish to do that.
> 
> The Libertarian Party philosophy pretty much opposes that concept as it would have all people being required to have a society that the Libertarians (large L) want to have.  Which is why the Libertarian Party mostly opposes those communities who want to regulate guns or allow a creche on the courthouse lawn or put crosses on the graves of fallen warriors or ban drugs.  Liberty must include the ability to be 'narrow minded' and/or organize a religious or restrictive society as much as a society in which every person decides for himself/herself and there is little or no law at all.  Unless we are free to organize the society we want to live in--whether we think that is good or bad-- there is no liberty at all.  You still have a despot or monarch or dictator or totalitarianism dictating who and what we are and how we are required to live.
Click to expand...


HUH?  The only way to be classical libertarian is to not vote for government that agrees with classical libertarian views?  The only way to have liberty is to not demand liberty? WTH are you on? Acid?


----------



## American_Jihad

*Glenn Greenwald: Raving Leftist*

March 6, 2014 by Matthew Vadum






An unabashed partisan Democrat, Wilentz is known for his televised histrionics on the eve of President Clintons impeachment. He warned House members that if they voted to impeach Clinton, history will track you down and condemn you for your cravenness. The New York Times ridiculed him for his outburst, editorializing that his gratuitously patronizing presentation  marred the Democratic experts argument that Mr. Clintons misconduct did not meet the constitutional tests for impeachment.

In the article on Greenwald, whom Rachel Maddow calls the American lefts most fearless political commentator, Wilentz artfully suggests that Greenwald might be a right-wing crypto-critic of the president and the Left because he is a zealot on so-called privacy issues and has ferociously attacked the Obama administration for its NSA spying abuses. Instead of making a clear accusation of ideological infidelity against Greenwald, Wilentz cherry-picks statements from Greenwalds past to put him in the same ideological camp as Ron Paul paleoconservatives, who support income tax abolition, isolationism, among other things.

...

Greenwalds radical left-wing credentials are further burnished by his repeated condemnations of Israel and its supporters  e.g., the notion that large and extremely influential Jewish donor groups secretly manipulate American foreign policy; the claim that most American politicians feel compelled to pledge their uncritical, absolute loyalty to Israel, lest their careers be ruined; the charge that Israeli aggression [against Gaza] is possible only because of Americas diplomatic, financial and military support for Israel and everything it does; and the stunning suggestion that it makes little sense to criminalize anything that is deemed to be support for Hezbollah and Hamas, given that those groups are devoted to protecting their citizens against the state of Israel and are not in any way devoted to harming Americans.

...

Contrary to Wilentzs claims, Greenwald is not unlike many others on the far left who find ready allies on the fringes of the Republican Party due to a shared worldview that puts America at the center of their hatred. This is the niche that Greenwald has occupied throughout most of his public career, and he has made the appropriate connections on the way. But time after time Greenwald has returned to the mantras of supporting massive wealth redistribution and maligning the U.S. as the source of the worlds ills. His commitment to Trotskyists and other totalitarian socialists is no accident, but an expression of his inner core.

Glenn Greenwald: Raving Leftist | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> Go down the list of the Libertarian Party 2012 platform.  On issue after issue it assumes that the federal government is the agent to demand liberty and if we elect Bob Barr, he'll make it happen.  That is as wrong as the GOP or Democratic Party assuming the federal government is the agent to promise or accomplish much of anything.



Foxy, I love you dearly, but this is absurd.

Barr listed the areas where he would WITHDRAW the federal government from, restoring liberty by placing issues back in the hands of the many states and restoring Constitutional adherence. 



> The classical liberal sees the federal government as having Constitutional Authority to secure our rights, implement just enough regulation to facilitate us operating as one nation, and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have, however we wish to do that.



Okay.



> The Libertarian Party philosophy pretty much opposes that concept as it would have all people being required to have a society that the Libertarians (large L) want to have.  Which is why the Libertarian Party mostly opposes those communities who want to regulate guns or allow a creche on the courthouse lawn or put crosses on the graves of fallen warriors or ban drugs.  Liberty must include the ability to be 'narrow minded' and/or organize a religious or restrictive society as much as a society in which every person decides for himself/herself and there is little or no law at all.  Unless we are free to organize the society we want to live in--whether we think that is good or bad-- there is no liberty at all.  You still have a despot or monarch or dictator or totalitarianism dictating who and what we are and how we are required to live.



This nation has a Constitution. You're right that under Libertarian ideals, a community could not vote to have slavery, or outlaw Christianity, or prohibit the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We long ago found that certain elements are needed for communities to be legitimate within the framework of this nation. Respect of the Bill of Rights is foremost  of these.


----------



## bedowin62

well for starters there is nothing liberal about liberals; with the exception of the way the liberally blow trillions of other people's money just to fail.


----------



## Bumberclyde

*Why do people hate Liberals?*

The stick jammed way up their arses that Libs don't have.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go down the list of the Libertarian Party 2012 platform.  On issue after issue it assumes that the federal government is the agent to demand liberty and if we elect Bob Barr, he'll make it happen.  That is as wrong as the GOP or Democratic Party assuming the federal government is the agent to promise or accomplish much of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxy, I love you dearly, but this is absurd.
> 
> Barr listed the areas where he would WITHDRAW the federal government from, restoring liberty by placing issues back in the hands of the many states and restoring Constitutional adherence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The classical liberal sees the federal government as having Constitutional Authority to secure our rights, implement just enough regulation to facilitate us operating as one nation, and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have, however we wish to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Libertarian Party philosophy pretty much opposes that concept as it would have all people being required to have a society that the Libertarians (large L) want to have.  Which is why the Libertarian Party mostly opposes those communities who want to regulate guns or allow a creche on the courthouse lawn or put crosses on the graves of fallen warriors or ban drugs.  Liberty must include the ability to be 'narrow minded' and/or organize a religious or restrictive society as much as a society in which every person decides for himself/herself and there is little or no law at all.  Unless we are free to organize the society we want to live in--whether we think that is good or bad-- there is no liberty at all.  You still have a despot or monarch or dictator or totalitarianism dictating who and what we are and how we are required to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This nation has a Constitution. You're right that under Libertarian ideals, a community could not vote to have slavery, or outlaw Christianity, or prohibit the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We long ago found that certain elements are needed for communities to be legitimate within the framework of this nation. Respect of the Bill of Rights is foremost  of these.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying Bob Barr would be a terrible President, Uncensored, but unless you start at the state and local level to establish principles and goals, the President is going to be pretty ineffective to accomplish much change because he won't have a Congress that will share his goals.  And Barr doesn't have a really good track record on his personal convictions either.  He was strongly pro-life as a Republican in the 1990's, a strong advocate against drug legalization, and one of the architects of the Defense of Marriage Act.  And now that he is a Libertarian, he has reversed all those positions?

Whenever you have somebody who appears to compromise their values for political expediency, that does not give me a great deal of confidence in how strongly they are committed to what they preach.  Yes, anybody can change their mind on this issue or that issue, and I will accept that.  But when it is such an abrupt flipflop in so many critical issues just to conform to a party platform, I just shake my head, throw up my hands, and walk away.  That is what Obama did and that is why I have essentially no respect for him.

And speaking of being absurd, my examples of what liberty looks like did not include re-establishing slavery or outlawing Christianity or anything like that.  You are rarely guilty of hyperbole and non sequitur, but that was a huge overreach.  And I love you too.


----------



## rdean

Why do people hate Liberals?

Republicans are assuming it is they who are "people".


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> I'm not saying Bob Barr would be a terrible President, Uncensored, but unless you start at the state and local level to establish principles and goals, the President is going to be pretty ineffective to accomplish much change because he won't have a Congress that will share his goals.  And Barr doesn't have a really good track record on his personal convictions either.  He was strongly pro-life as a Republican in the 1990's, a strong advocate against drug legalization, and one of the architects of the Defense of Marriage Act.  And now that he is a Libertarian, he has reversed all those positions?
> 
> Whenever you have somebody who appears to compromise their values for political expediency, that does not give me a great deal of confidence in how strongly they are committed to what they preach.  Yes, anybody can change their mind on this issue or that issue, and I will accept that.  But when it is such an abrupt flipflop in so many critical issues just to conform to a party platform, I just shake my head, throw up my hands, and walk away.  That is what Obama did and that is why I have essentially no respect for him.




I'm not a fan of Barr. I've never trusted him for exactly the reasons you list.

I'm anti-abortion and view it as the only rational Libertarian position. But Barr flip flopping is worrisome.




> And speaking of being absurd, my examples of what liberty looks like did not include re-establishing slavery or outlawing Christianity or anything like that.  You are rarely guilty of hyperbole and non sequitur, but that was a huge overreach.  And I love you too.



My response is to;



> the Libertarian Party mostly opposes those communities who want to regulate guns



Since this violates the United States Constitution, it is right that the LPUSA should oppose it, as should the other parties.

I wasn't accusing your of seeking to establish slavery, I was simply pointing out that denying civil rights is not an area of state or community discretion.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rdean said:


> Why do people hate Liberals?
> 
> Republicans are assuming it is they who are "people".



Well, no one is going to make the mistake of assuming you are a "people," drone.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying Bob Barr would be a terrible President, Uncensored, but unless you start at the state and local level to establish principles and goals, the President is going to be pretty ineffective to accomplish much change because he won't have a Congress that will share his goals.  And Barr doesn't have a really good track record on his personal convictions either.  He was strongly pro-life as a Republican in the 1990's, a strong advocate against drug legalization, and one of the architects of the Defense of Marriage Act.  And now that he is a Libertarian, he has reversed all those positions?
> 
> Whenever you have somebody who appears to compromise their values for political expediency, that does not give me a great deal of confidence in how strongly they are committed to what they preach.  Yes, anybody can change their mind on this issue or that issue, and I will accept that.  But when it is such an abrupt flipflop in so many critical issues just to conform to a party platform, I just shake my head, throw up my hands, and walk away.  That is what Obama did and that is why I have essentially no respect for him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a fan of Barr. I've never trusted him for exactly the reasons you list.
> 
> I'm anti-abortion and view it as the only rational Libertarian position. But Barr flip flopping is worrisome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And speaking of being absurd, my examples of what liberty looks like did not include re-establishing slavery or outlawing Christianity or anything like that.  You are rarely guilty of hyperbole and non sequitur, but that was a huge overreach.  And I love you too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My response is to;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Libertarian Party mostly opposes those communities who want to regulate guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since this violates the United States Constitution, it is right that the LPUSA should oppose it, as should the other parties.
> 
> I wasn't accusing your of seeking to establish slavery, I was simply pointing out that denying civil rights is not an area of state or community discretion.
Click to expand...


But reasonable regulation of guns by a local community is not a violation of civil rights in my opinion.  And if a local community does not want guns on the street or in the schools or in the bars or in the courthouse, imposing rules about discharging a weapon in certain areas, etc. etc. etc., it should have the right to form the sort of society it wishes to have short of violating somebody else's unalienable rights.  The Constitution, in my opinion, puts the unalienable right of the people to have the society they want ahead of the right to use guns any way they want. 

The same Constitution would prohibit denying the people the right to own and keep guns on their own property. 

Some Libertarians, however, characterize ANY restrictions on guns as violating everybody's rights.  And that is how modern American liberals navigate.

Just as some liberals characterize our wishing to eliminate UNNECESSARY regulation as our desire to eliminate ALL regulation - or - they characterize our desire to utilize honest science and real criteria in issues of environment and/or climate change as our willingness to pollute all air, water, and soil and/or putting profits ahead of the common good, yadda yadda.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> But reasonable regulation of guns by a local community is not a violation of civil rights in my opinion.  And if a local community does not want guns on the street or in the schools or in the bars or in the courthouse, imposing rules about discharging a weapon in certain areas, etc. etc. etc., it should have the right to form the sort of society it wishes to have short of violating somebody else's unalienable rights.  The Constitution, in my opinion, puts the unalienable right of the people to have the society they want ahead of the right to use guns any way they want.
> 
> The same Constitution would prohibit denying the people the right to own and keep guns on their own property.
> 
> Some Libertarians, however, characterize ANY restrictions on guns as violating everybody's rights.  And that is how modern American liberals navigate.
> 
> Just as some liberals characterize our wishing to eliminate UNNECESSARY regulation as our desire to eliminate ALL regulation - or - they characterize our desire to utilize honest science and real criteria in issues of environment and/or climate change as our willingness to pollute all air, water, and soil and/or putting profits ahead of the common good, yadda yadda.



The thing is, the Constitution affirms the right to bear arm, as well as keep them.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But reasonable regulation of guns by a local community is not a violation of civil rights in my opinion.  And if a local community does not want guns on the street or in the schools or in the bars or in the courthouse, imposing rules about discharging a weapon in certain areas, etc. etc. etc., it should have the right to form the sort of society it wishes to have short of violating somebody else's unalienable rights.  The Constitution, in my opinion, puts the unalienable right of the people to have the society they want ahead of the right to use guns any way they want.
> 
> The same Constitution would prohibit denying the people the right to own and keep guns on their own property.
> 
> Some Libertarians, however, characterize ANY restrictions on guns as violating everybody's rights.  And that is how modern American liberals navigate.
> 
> Just as some liberals characterize our wishing to eliminate UNNECESSARY regulation as our desire to eliminate ALL regulation - or - they characterize our desire to utilize honest science and real criteria in issues of environment and/or climate change as our willingness to pollute all air, water, and soil and/or putting profits ahead of the common good, yadda yadda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, the Constitution affirms the right to bear arm, as well as keep them.
Click to expand...


But it does not affirm the right for you to bear them in my private space nor me in yours if either of us should object.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> But it does not affirm the right for you to bear them in my private space nor me in yours if either of us should object.



True, private property is free to make their own rules.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it does not affirm the right for you to bear them in my private space nor me in yours if either of us should object.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, private property is free to make their own rules.
Click to expand...


And so should a society have the ability to make its own rules for how they want their shared life together to be conducted.  That means make rules for the society they live in as a community and not rules for everybody else outside that community.  That is the part of true liberty that  Libertarians (Big "L") usually don't quite get.  And why they get a lot of push back from me.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> And so should a society have the ability to make its own rules for how they want their shared life together to be conducted.



Only within the confines of the Constitution.

We get right back to the notion of a community deciding slavery is just hunky dory for them. 

The freedom to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose. (Murray Rothbard.) A community simply cannot pass laws that infringe the rights of others. A city has no more authority to deny a law abiding citizen the right to carry a weapon, than they do to declare that redheads shall be placed in bondage to labor for the benefit of non-redheads.



> That means make rules for the society they live in as a community and not rules for everybody else outside that community.  That is the part of true liberty that  Libertarians (Big "L") usually don't quite get.  And why they get a lot of push back from me.



Again, respect for the rights of the minority is the foundational principle of this nation, and why we codified a bill of rights.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so should a society have the ability to make its own rules for how they want their shared life together to be conducted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only within the confines of the Constitution.
> 
> We get right back to the notion of a community deciding slavery is just hunky dory for them.
> 
> The freedom to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose. (Murray Rothbard.) A community simply cannot pass laws that infringe the rights of others. A city has no more authority to deny a law abiding citizen the right to carry a weapon, than they do to declare that redheads shall be placed in bondage to labor for the benefit of non-redheads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That means make rules for the society they live in as a community and not rules for everybody else outside that community.  That is the part of true liberty that  Libertarians (Big "L") usually don't quite get.  And why they get a lot of push back from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, respect for the rights of the minority is the foundational principle of this nation, and why we codified a bill of rights.
Click to expand...


Slavery violates the unalienable rights of persons.  That cannot be anybody's choice under the Constitution.  Throughout this discussion, I have qualified my argument to include that 'so long as nobody's unalienable rights are violated or threatened'.   So again, if a community wants to have that crech on the courthouse lawn or doesn't want it on the courthouse lawn or wants a gun free community in public places or wants to allow all citizens to carry a gun at all times, it should be their right to have the community they want.  They are violating nobody's rights and no matter how foolish or silly or ill advised it looks to others, liberty must allow them to be who they are and do it just like they want to do it.  Short of violating the rights of others, liberty must allow people to be wrong as well as right.


----------



## Bfgrn

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it does not affirm the right for you to bear them in my private space nor me in yours if either of us should object.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, private property is free to make their own rules.
Click to expand...


Not according to the NRA. If you park your car on my property, the NRA says it is none of my business that a loaded gun is sitting in your glove box waiting for any thief to use against me, my family and my workers.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Bfgrn said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it does not affirm the right for you to bear them in my private space nor me in yours if either of us should object.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, private property is free to make their own rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to the NRA. If you park your car on my property, the NRA says it is none of my business that a loaded gun is sitting in your glove box waiting for any thief to use against me, my family and my workers.
Click to expand...


Your penchant for hyperbole knows no limit does it? If you park your car illegally on my driveway or at my place of business, I have the right to ask you to leave, by force if necessary. I have the constitutional right to my property, meaning that the NRA hasn't a thing to do with it. Seriously.


----------



## Bfgrn

TemplarKormac said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, private property is free to make their own rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to the NRA. If you park your car on my property, the NRA says it is none of my business that a loaded gun is sitting in your glove box waiting for any thief to use against me, my family and my workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your penchant for hyperbole knows no limit does it? If you park your car illegally on my driveway or at my place of business, I have the right to ask you to leave, by force if necessary. I have the constitutional right to my property, meaning that the NRA hasn't a thing to do with it. Seriously.
Click to expand...


There is no sin except stupidity.
Oscar Wilde






On the Perils of Single-Issue Politics | Cato @ Liberty

It seems that the NRA has launched a $75,000 ad campaign against state Rep. Debra Maggart, a long-time NRA member and avid gun-owner who a year ago had an A+ rating from the NRA. Her sin? She and several other Tennessee Republican officials opposed a bill that would have allowed employees to keep guns in their cars while parked in their private employers parking lots.

The NRAs Chris Cox, whos spearheading this political vendetta and, in the process, is supporting Maggarts tea-party backed opponent, invokes both our First Amendment right to assemble to petition our government and, of course, the Second Amendment, seemingly oblivious to the fact that neither is relevant here. In fact, the issue could not be simpler: individuals, including employers, have a right to determine the conditions on which others may enter their property.

The Second Amendment prevents the government, not private parties, from infringing your right to keep and bear arms. If a private party can ban you from his property for any reason, good or bad, he can do so for carrying a gun. So too with the First Amendment: it limits what governments, not private parties, may do; government may not violate your rights of assembly and petition, none of which is happening here.

As so often happens, here again we see how single-issue politics, in the name of liberty, ends up undermining liberty. The tea party should know better.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Rutgers rage against Rice -- why do liberals have so much hate for black conservatives?*​
By Juan Williams
March 09, 2014

Have you heard the news?

Condoleezza Rice lacks moral authority. She fails to meet the standards of exemplary citizenship and she does not have what it takes to inspire graduating college seniors.

That crazy thinking comes from the New Brunswick Faculty Council of Rutgers University. They voted last week to ask university leadership to cancel Rices invitation to be this years Commencement Speaker and receive an honorary degree.

How is the public served by muzzling one of the most thoughtful, accomplished and respected political voices of her time just because she happens to be a Republican?

Yes, apparently the first African-American woman to serve as National Security Adviser and the nations Secretary of State doesnt have what it takes to be honored by Rutgers.

Rice holds a Ph.D. in political science. She has taught college for decades. She was Provost of Stanford University. She worked her way up from a working-class family in the segregated South to the highest echelon of world power and politics.

But according to the Rutgers faculty council, all of that is negated by her service in President George W. Bushs administration.

...

Rutgers rage against Rice -- why do liberals have so much hate for black conservatives? | Fox News


----------



## American_Jihad

...
Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;

satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

augmenting primitive feelings of envy; 

rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

The roots of liberalism  and its associated madness  can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind, he says. When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.


Read more at Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill


----------



## FlemishMaster

Hate is such an unproductive emotion.


----------



## Traditionalist

I don't hate liberals. I just dislike their intellectual arrogance, their false "tolerance", their attempts at social engineering, and their tendency toward moral relativism and secular dogma.


----------



## srlip

if they truly ARE liberals, not a problem. but if they want to disarm me and tax me, then they are enemies, and will be so treated.


----------



## Pete7469

Why wouldn't anyone who is cognizant not hate liberals? These parasites are deliberately ignorant. They resist knowledge, suppress the free exchange of ideas, and work to destroy those who promote individual liberty over the welfare of their beloved collectivist state.

I don't even view these bed wetters as human anymore. They're robotic parasites, locusts, and oxygen thieves. If it weren't for child proof lids on Drano, most of these imbeciles would have died under their idiot parent's kitchen sink, and the world would be a better place.

Moonbats are the reason I can't get worked up about abortion.

Good Christian conservatives generally do not get the procedure. God-less self absorbed fucktard liberal worms do. 

Same thing with the queer issue.

Intelligent emotionally mature people are not gay. They will reproduce. Stupid bed wetters who define themselves by what organs they put in their mouths won't.

The world will be better off when all the dumbfuck statist abort all their offspring or swallow them.


----------



## srlip

u r retared, man. Define the time and "choice" you "made" it, to be straight, hmm? If you are honest, you'll know that there WAS no time decision. there's none for being gay, either. They're born that way, and if you give a hoot about it, it's cause you're either a moron or scared that you ARE one.


----------



## Votto

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



Other than the fact that liberals are fascist control freaks who are in full control of the government, educaiton, the courts, and the media and who are offended just by looking at them wrong and then wishing to silence you if they don't like you and are destroying the country, in addition to being soulless and amoral, they are not so bad.


----------



## Pete7469

srlip said:


> u r retared, man. Define the time and "choice" you "made" it, to be straight, hmm? If you are honest, you'll know that there WAS no time decision. there's none for being gay, either. They're born that way, and if you give a hoot about it, it's cause you're either a moron or scared that you ARE one.



Blow it out your ass bed wetter. I didn't make a "choice", but I've heard all my life that I have to be "tolerant" of other people's "lifestyle choices". If you choose to suck dicks, I don't care. I'm sick of being told I have to accept your deviance, or there's something wrong with me.

If  you choose to define yourself by what you fuck, and allow your life to revolve around what other people's opinion is regarding it there isn't anything wrong with the rest of the world. There's something wrong with you and YOU KNOW IT or you wouldn't care what anyone thinks about it.


----------



## Toro

Pete7469 said:


> srlip said:
> 
> 
> 
> u r retared, man. Define the time and "choice" you "made" it, to be straight, hmm? If you are honest, you'll know that there WAS no time decision. there's none for being gay, either. They're born that way, and if you give a hoot about it, it's cause you're either a moron or scared that you ARE one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blow it out your ass bed wetter. I didn't make a "choice", but I've heard all my life that I have to be "tolerant" of other people's "lifestyle choices". If you choose to suck dicks, I don't care. I'm sick of being told I have to accept your deviance, or there's something wrong with me.
> 
> If  you choose to define yourself by what you fuck, and allow your life to revolve around what other people's opinion is regarding it there isn't anything wrong with the rest of the world. There's something wrong with you and YOU KNOW IT or you wouldn't care what anyone thinks about it.
Click to expand...


^^^^^^^^^
If this thread was entitled "Why do people hate conservatives," this post would be a good example why.


----------



## Pete7469

Toro said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> srlip said:
> 
> 
> 
> u r retared, man. Define the time and "choice" you "made" it, to be straight, hmm? If you are honest, you'll know that there WAS no time decision. there's none for being gay, either. They're born that way, and if you give a hoot about it, it's cause you're either a moron or scared that you ARE one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blow it out your ass bed wetter. I didn't make a "choice", but I've heard all my life that I have to be "tolerant" of other people's "lifestyle choices". If you choose to suck dicks, I don't care. I'm sick of being told I have to accept your deviance, or there's something wrong with me.
> 
> If  you choose to define yourself by what you fuck, and allow your life to revolve around what other people's opinion is regarding it there isn't anything wrong with the rest of the world. There's something wrong with you and YOU KNOW IT or you wouldn't care what anyone thinks about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^
> If this thread was entitled "Why do people hate conservatives," this post would be a good example why.
Click to expand...


Of course you lack the intellectual capacity to explain why.

Someone merely gives their opinion on an issue and they're hated for it.

Someone actively pursues an agenda that deprives the rest of us of rights, REAL RIGHTS that actually are listed in the US Constitution, and we're not supposed to hate them.


----------



## American_Jihad

Bump, Haha


----------



## American_Jihad

Typical...

*Why I’ve finally given up on the left*
Left-wing thought has shifted towards movements it would once have denounced as racist, imperialist and fascistic. It is insupportable
924 Comments 19 September 2015

...
In the past, people would head to the exits saying, ‘Better the centre right than the far left.’ Now they can say ‘better the centre right than the far right’. The shift of left-wing thought towards movements it would once have denounced as racist, imperialist and fascistic has been building for years. I come from a left-wing family, marched against Margaret Thatcher and was one of the first journalists to denounce New Labour’s embrace of corporate capitalism — and I don’t regret any of it. But slowly, too slowly I am ashamed to say, I began to notice that left-wing politics had turned rancid.
...
Why I’ve finally given up on the left


----------



## kaz

Liberal's standard for others is Mother Teresa, their standard for themselves is Hitler


----------



## Dot Com

kaz much? Save the lolibertarian hyperbole kiddo

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst

Soylent Green!!  Soylent Green!


----------



## Jackson

I don't _hate_ liberals, I just _disagree_ with them much of the time.  They want to give away the store to themselves while the conservatives work and pay the bills.

However, I am in favor of taxing _everyone; _no social security for_ millionaires;  _no medicare or SS for_ billionaires;  legal_ immigrants should be_ citizens; higher tax for 1%, but not so high they leave the country!_


----------



## Foxfyre

Jackson said:


> I don't _hate_ liberals, I just _disagree_ with them much of the time.  They want to give away the store to themselves while the conservatives work and pay the bills.
> 
> However, I am in favor of taxing _everyone; _no social security for_ millionaires;  _no medicare or SS for_ billionaires;  legal_ immigrants should be_ citizens; higher tax for 1%, but not so high they leave the country!_



But the liberal mentality is that you charge a premium to or punish the successful.  I don't think the financially successful should have any greater tax liability than anybody else.  Too often people fail to understand how many have been benefitted by somebody's success.  Bill Gates, for example, has probably provided means for more people to become millionaires than anybody in history and I doubt there is anyway to calculate the millions upon millions of people who have been able to earn a living from Microsoft technology and all the spinoffs that it has generated.  We need many more people with the vision and guts to take the risks to create opportunity like that for everybody.  The more people who are working, the more people who are contributing to the whole.

The government at all levels should exist for and serve all citizens equally without prejudice re race, gender, political affiliations, or socioeconomic circumstances.  And every citizen with income should be expected to fund the government proportionately.  That gives everybody a dog in the fight and incentive to encourage good government and not just government that will cater to them personally or give them advantages or privileges that others don't have.


----------



## Jackson

Well said, Foxfyre.


----------



## Pete7469

Jackson said:


> I don't _hate_ liberals, I just _disagree_ with them much of the time.  They want to give away the store to themselves while the conservatives work and pay the bills.
> 
> However, I am in favor of taxing _everyone; _no social security for_ millionaires;  _no medicare or SS for_ billionaires;  legal_ immigrants should be_ citizens; higher tax for 1%, but not so high they leave the country!_



I have reached the point of hating these parasites. The serve no positive purpose. Every thing  they do destroys, marginalizes or otherwise undermines our ability as individuals to pursue an enhanced standard of living.

Even on issues where bed wetters claim to support freedom, like queer marriage for instance, is not really about letting deviants become "equal" or advance their rights. They use that to undermine the morality of our culture and marginalize religious beliefs. Some day being a butt pirate will no longer be useful to these statists and they will work to minimize their numbers. Just like the bolsheviks found religion useful again during WW2 after tearing down most of the churches. 

However idiot liberals will dismiss that and scoff at the idea that their leaders are the same sort of criminally insane totalitarian sociopaths that every leftist regime in history has proven to be.

People that dangerously stupid should be reviled, because they are detrimental to the human race.


----------



## kaz

Toro said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> srlip said:
> 
> 
> 
> u r retared, man. Define the time and "choice" you "made" it, to be straight, hmm? If you are honest, you'll know that there WAS no time decision. there's none for being gay, either. They're born that way, and if you give a hoot about it, it's cause you're either a moron or scared that you ARE one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blow it out your ass bed wetter. I didn't make a "choice", but I've heard all my life that I have to be "tolerant" of other people's "lifestyle choices". If you choose to suck dicks, I don't care. I'm sick of being told I have to accept your deviance, or there's something wrong with me.
> 
> If  you choose to define yourself by what you fuck, and allow your life to revolve around what other people's opinion is regarding it there isn't anything wrong with the rest of the world. There's something wrong with you and YOU KNOW IT or you wouldn't care what anyone thinks about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^
> If this thread was entitled "Why do people hate conservatives," this post would be a good example why.
Click to expand...


You comfortable in a group of people in The City you don't know saying you are a Republican?


----------



## Pete7469

kaz said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> srlip said:
> 
> 
> 
> u r retared, man. Define the time and "choice" you "made" it, to be straight, hmm? If you are honest, you'll know that there WAS no time decision. there's none for being gay, either. They're born that way, and if you give a hoot about it, it's cause you're either a moron or scared that you ARE one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blow it out your ass bed wetter. I didn't make a "choice", but I've heard all my life that I have to be "tolerant" of other people's "lifestyle choices". If you choose to suck dicks, I don't care. I'm sick of being told I have to accept your deviance, or there's something wrong with me.
> 
> If  you choose to define yourself by what you fuck, and allow your life to revolve around what other people's opinion is regarding it there isn't anything wrong with the rest of the world. There's something wrong with you and YOU KNOW IT or you wouldn't care what anyone thinks about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^
> If this thread was entitled "Why do people hate conservatives," this post would be a good example why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You comfortable in a group of people in The City you don't know saying you are a Republican?
Click to expand...


Toro may be a republicrat, but so is McLame. Jerk Fakey registers even lower in the contempt dept.

One of the reasons conservatives have such a hard time getting their voices heard is because they are so fucking timid. When a bed wetting libtard wants to get it's point across they will grab people by the throat and scream in their face, then set shit on fire.

I don't advocate conservatives adopt such tactics but they sure to need to grow a pair and stop allowing moonbat sociopaths to dictate the margins of what may be said.


----------



## jillian

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



"people" don't, troll.

rightwingnut freaks do because they're rightwingnut freaks.

I hope that helps.


----------



## Pete7469

kaz said:


> Liberal's standard for others is Mother Teresa, their standard for themselves is Hitler



Moonbats share a lot of the political philosophy shitler promoted. They have even embraced the palestinian cause and their anti semitism is on full display.

Neo-Nazi is just as fitting a label for many bed wetters as neo-bolshevik.


----------



## Pete7469

jillian said:


> "people" don't, troll.
> 
> rightwingnut freaks do because they're rightwingnut freaks.
> 
> I hope that helps.



It helps prove what a blithering idiot you are.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Pete7469 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal's standard for others is Mother Teresa, their standard for themselves is Hitler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonbats share a lot of the political philosophy shitler promoted. They have even embraced the palestinian cause and their anti semitism is on full display.
> 
> Neo-Nazi is just as fitting a label for many bed wetters as neo-bolshevik.
Click to expand...


The one positive about Pete is he spends his time on the internet, otherwise he would be blocking a sidewalk with a sandwich board claiming the end is near.


----------



## Pete7469

Wry Catcher said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal's standard for others is Mother Teresa, their standard for themselves is Hitler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonbats share a lot of the political philosophy shitler promoted. They have even embraced the palestinian cause and their anti semitism is on full display.
> 
> Neo-Nazi is just as fitting a label for many bed wetters as neo-bolshevik.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one positive about Pete is he spends his time on the internet, otherwise he would be blocking a sidewalk with a sandwich board claiming the end is near.
Click to expand...


The end was in November 2008. It's been all down hill since.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Pete7469 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal's standard for others is Mother Teresa, their standard for themselves is Hitler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonbats share a lot of the political philosophy shitler promoted. They have even embraced the palestinian cause and their anti semitism is on full display.
> 
> Neo-Nazi is just as fitting a label for many bed wetters as neo-bolshevik.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one positive about Pete is he spends his time on the internet, otherwise he would be blocking a sidewalk with a sandwich board claiming the end is near.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The end was in November 2008. It's been all down hill since.
Click to expand...


True, GWB's Administration is culpable for the economic crisis, but that occurred in October of 2008, not November, as ever sober person knows.


----------



## American_Jihad

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


----------



## skye

New York liberals

those are the ones I hate the most

scum scum!


----------



## skye

They are the worst scum ever 

New York liberals vermin


----------



## American_Jihad

skye said:


> They are the worst scum ever
> 
> New York liberals vermin


----------



## bripat9643

Saigon said:


> FlexibleEnergy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And also the extraordinary steps used to make such things happen.
> the holy grail of progressivism,visit marxist.org: The Leading Marxist Site on the Net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxism is not Liberalism, any more so than Fascism is Conservatism.
Click to expand...


What's the disinction between Marxism and liberalism?


----------



## northpolarbear

I never saw the liberals as the moral one. Felt more like (well, I am a conservative & a republican if I have to label myself although I don't agree with them on every single issue) "looking to decorate themselves with anything they can get their hands on whether it is really fair to both sides or not". Like banning ham for Muslim not being fair to the other side. Reverse oppression seems to be common by liberals while they like to decorate themselves with "going against oppression" as if it makes them so sophisticated. 

I've given that speech before, but it seems to suits this topic.


----------



## Wry Catcher

northpolarbear said:


> I never saw the liberals as the moral one. Felt more like (well, I am a conservative & a republican if I have to label myself although I don't agree with them on every single issue) "looking to decorate themselves with anything they can get their hands on whether it is really fair to both sides or not". Like banning ham for Muslim not being fair to the other side. Reverse oppression seems to be common by liberals while they like to decorate themselves with "going against oppression" as if it makes them so sophisticated.
> 
> I've given that speech before, but it seems to suits this topic.



Fair?  What defines your sense of fair?


----------



## midcan5

I have two other posts in this thread, that it is still active demonstrates a level of partisanship that exists in America today and says lots about why we are declining as a nation. No longer is debate over ideas or policies, it is rather finger pointing paid for by powers that benefit from the confusion. Agitprop controls the mind of too many. 

Why do people hate Liberals? | Page 12 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum  post# 114
Why do people hate Liberals? | Page 161 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum  post# 1604

Hate is too strong a word except for enemies, that America was founded and built by liberal ideas should give any reader pause.* Does anyone know of a nation founded by conservatives, of course not as conservatism is about respect for the values that work or in some cases only work for the few. *Change and progress require an openness to experiment and that isn't part of the conservative's playbook. You witness that today in the republican party's repetitive slogans while they accomplish nothing. But argument doesn't work as hate wasn't rational in the first place. Two books worth your time in any attempt to understand our current situation are noted below. And a piece on public opinion is also quoted. Enjoy, oh and do this too, think rather than react.

*'The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy' Albert O. Hirschman 
'Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal'  Kim Phillips-Fein *

I found the essay noted below in 'Individualism Reconsidered' by David Riesman, a used copy can be purchased from Amazon if you are interested. A bit dated but an interesting thoughtful read.

"How can it be that 54% of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim?  The answer -- not simple at all -- is that public opinion polling is a socio-psycho-dynamically complex interaction between the poll-taker and the respondent in which the manifest content of the question and answer are a very imperfect representation of the latent interactive processes taking place in the polling.

In the simplest terms possible, I suggest that the answer to my despairing question is this:  When a pollster asks a respondent the manifest question "Is President Obama a Muslim?," the respondent at some level experiences this as the quite different latent question, "Do you like President Obama?"  The respondent understands quite well, even if not consciously, that to give the patently true answer "No" to the manifest question would actually be to give the answer "Yes" to the latent question.  So the respondent answers "Yes" to the manifest question, not wanting to be trapped into expressing any sort of support or sympathy for Obama.  The poll taker dutifully records this as a "yes" to the manifest question rather than what it really is, a "No" to the latent question.

*I am quite confident that if a polling organization were to ask a statistically representative sample of Republicans  "Does President Obama have horns?," a significant percentage of respondents would say "Yes," *even though all of them have seen Obama on television many times and know quite well that he has no horns."  The Philosopher's Stone: A STROLL DOWN MEMORY  LANE

"The uncompromising attitude is more indicative of an inner uncertainty than a deep conviction. The implacable stand is directed more against the doubt within than the assailant without." Eric Hoffer


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.




Because...(waits hoping this sound arguement is self-evident and adequate.)


----------



## American_Jihad

midcan5 said:


> I have two other posts in this thread, that it is still active demonstrates a level of partisanship that exists in America today and says lots about why we are declining as a nation. No longer is debate over ideas or policies, it is rather finger pointing paid for by powers that benefit from the confusion. Agitprop controls the mind of too many.
> 
> Why do people hate Liberals? | Page 12 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum  post# 114
> Why do people hate Liberals? | Page 161 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum  post# 1604
> 
> Hate is too strong a word except for enemies, that America was founded and built by liberal ideas should give any reader pause.* Does anyone know of a nation founded by conservatives, of course not as conservatism is about respect for the values that work or in some cases only work for the few. *Change and progress require an openness to experiment and that isn't part of the conservative's playbook. You witness that today in the republican party's repetitive slogans while they accomplish nothing. But argument doesn't work as hate wasn't rational in the first place. Two books worth your time in any attempt to understand our current situation are noted below. And a piece on public opinion is also quoted. Enjoy, oh and do this too, think rather than react.
> 
> *'The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy' Albert O. Hirschman
> 'Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal'  Kim Phillips-Fein *
> 
> I found the essay noted below in 'Individualism Reconsidered' by David Riesman, a used copy can be purchased from Amazon if you are interested. A bit dated but an interesting thoughtful read.
> 
> "How can it be that 54% of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim?  The answer -- not simple at all -- is that public opinion polling is a socio-psycho-dynamically complex interaction between the poll-taker and the respondent in which the manifest content of the question and answer are a very imperfect representation of the latent interactive processes taking place in the polling.
> 
> In the simplest terms possible, I suggest that the answer to my despairing question is this:  When a pollster asks a respondent the manifest question "Is President Obama a Muslim?," the respondent at some level experiences this as the quite different latent question, "Do you like President Obama?"  The respondent understands quite well, even if not consciously, that to give the patently true answer "No" to the manifest question would actually be to give the answer "Yes" to the latent question.  So the respondent answers "Yes" to the manifest question, not wanting to be trapped into expressing any sort of support or sympathy for Obama.  The poll taker dutifully records this as a "yes" to the manifest question rather than what it really is, a "No" to the latent question.
> 
> *I am quite confident that if a polling organization were to ask a statistically representative sample of Republicans  "Does President Obama have horns?," a significant percentage of respondents would say "Yes," *even though all of them have seen Obama on television many times and know quite well that he has no horns."  The Philosopher's Stone: A STROLL DOWN MEMORY  LANE
> 
> "The uncompromising attitude is more indicative of an inner uncertainty than a deep conviction. The implacable stand is directed more against the doubt within than the assailant without." Eric Hoffer


----------



## Pete7469

American_Jihad said:


>



I would have responded differently.








That was a large pile of complete bullshit. First of all, if bed wetters didn't sympathize with or even support our enemies, maybe it wouldn't be appropriate to hate their pathetic asses. Yet moonbats have consistently gone out of their way to befriend the soviets, castro, ortega, saddam and most recently iran. It is their agenda to destroy the country.

Bed wetters like mid clown may be programmed to believe he's a "liberal" in the classic sense, but anyone who has critical thinking skills knows Thomas Jefferson would level a flintlock pistol between mid clown's eyes and sent a lead ball through his useless skull. The founders could not have conceived of a future where collectivist assholes gained political power and tyranized people for calling queers queer.


----------



## ChrisL

midcan5 said:


> I have two other posts in this thread, that it is still active demonstrates a level of partisanship that exists in America today and says lots about why we are declining as a nation. No longer is debate over ideas or policies, it is rather finger pointing paid for by powers that benefit from the confusion. Agitprop controls the mind of too many.
> 
> Why do people hate Liberals? | Page 12 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum  post# 114
> Why do people hate Liberals? | Page 161 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum  post# 1604
> 
> Hate is too strong a word except for enemies, that America was founded and built by liberal ideas should give any reader pause.* Does anyone know of a nation founded by conservatives, of course not as conservatism is about respect for the values that work or in some cases only work for the few. *Change and progress require an openness to experiment and that isn't part of the conservative's playbook. You witness that today in the republican party's repetitive slogans while they accomplish nothing. But argument doesn't work as hate wasn't rational in the first place. Two books worth your time in any attempt to understand our current situation are noted below. And a piece on public opinion is also quoted. Enjoy, oh and do this too, think rather than react.
> 
> *'The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy' Albert O. Hirschman
> 'Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal'  Kim Phillips-Fein *
> 
> I found the essay noted below in 'Individualism Reconsidered' by David Riesman, a used copy can be purchased from Amazon if you are interested. A bit dated but an interesting thoughtful read.
> 
> "How can it be that 54% of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim?  The answer -- not simple at all -- is that public opinion polling is a socio-psycho-dynamically complex interaction between the poll-taker and the respondent in which the manifest content of the question and answer are a very imperfect representation of the latent interactive processes taking place in the polling.
> 
> In the simplest terms possible, I suggest that the answer to my despairing question is this:  When a pollster asks a respondent the manifest question "Is President Obama a Muslim?," the respondent at some level experiences this as the quite different latent question, "Do you like President Obama?"  The respondent understands quite well, even if not consciously, that to give the patently true answer "No" to the manifest question would actually be to give the answer "Yes" to the latent question.  So the respondent answers "Yes" to the manifest question, not wanting to be trapped into expressing any sort of support or sympathy for Obama.  The poll taker dutifully records this as a "yes" to the manifest question rather than what it really is, a "No" to the latent question.
> 
> *I am quite confident that if a polling organization were to ask a statistically representative sample of Republicans  "Does President Obama have horns?," a significant percentage of respondents would say "Yes," *even though all of them have seen Obama on television many times and know quite well that he has no horns."  The Philosopher's Stone: A STROLL DOWN MEMORY  LANE
> 
> "The uncompromising attitude is more indicative of an inner uncertainty than a deep conviction. The implacable stand is directed more against the doubt within than the assailant without." Eric Hoffer



I think the first paragraph is spot on.  Not so sure about the other stuff though.


----------



## Foxfyre

I certainly don't hate liberals since I passionately love quite a few of them.  But I do hate liberalism when I believe it hurts people, however well intentioned it might be.  Compassion can be giving people what they need and conservatives do that as efficiently and effectively as liberals do.  But it is not compassion when good intention stifle the incentive or imperative for people to do what they need to do in order to do for themselves and achieve their potential.  It is not compassion when it rewards poor choices and bad behavior to the point that such is encouraged.

Certainly there is name calling, exaggeration, and demonization evident in both the conservative and liberal camps.  But I believe the average conservative does not exaggerate or demonize people, and it is intellectually dishonest to characterize any criticism or observations as exaggeration or demonization.


----------



## The Great Goose

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


I know right? They acuse half the population of being far left, crossdressing, control freak, Pol Potist, looney lefties.

It's ridiculous to conflate your enemy to include so many who are not.

I myself am left wing, but I absolutely loathe looney lefty progressives. They are beastly people.


----------



## American_Jihad

ROLMAO one says pass the bill the find out what's in it, the other wants a gubmint takeover of all companies and corporations, both in the same pic...


----------



## ChrisL

Foxfyre said:


> I certainly don't hate liberals since I passionately love quite a few of them.  But I do hate liberalism when I believe it hurts people, however well intentioned it might be.  Compassion can be giving people what they need and conservatives do that as efficiently and effectively as liberals do.  But it is not compassion when good intention stifle the incentive or imperative for people to do what they need to do in order to do for themselves and achieve their potential.  It is not compassion when it rewards poor choices and bad behavior to the point that such is encouraged.
> 
> Certainly there is name calling, exaggeration, and demonization evident in both the conservative and liberal camps.  But I believe the average conservative does not exaggerate or demonize people, and it is intellectually dishonest to characterize any criticism or observations as exaggeration or demonization.



I feel this way about both parties!  There really is not much difference between the two when it comes to behavior!


----------



## thanatos144

ChrisL said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly don't hate liberals since I passionately love quite a few of them.  But I do hate liberalism when I believe it hurts people, however well intentioned it might be.  Compassion can be giving people what they need and conservatives do that as efficiently and effectively as liberals do.  But it is not compassion when good intention stifle the incentive or imperative for people to do what they need to do in order to do for themselves and achieve their potential.  It is not compassion when it rewards poor choices and bad behavior to the point that such is encouraged.
> 
> Certainly there is name calling, exaggeration, and demonization evident in both the conservative and liberal camps.  But I believe the average conservative does not exaggerate or demonize people, and it is intellectually dishonest to characterize any criticism or observations as exaggeration or demonization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel this way about both parties!  There really is not much difference between the two when it comes to behavior!
Click to expand...

Then you are ignorant of the truth 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## ChrisL

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly don't hate liberals since I passionately love quite a few of them.  But I do hate liberalism when I believe it hurts people, however well intentioned it might be.  Compassion can be giving people what they need and conservatives do that as efficiently and effectively as liberals do.  But it is not compassion when good intention stifle the incentive or imperative for people to do what they need to do in order to do for themselves and achieve their potential.  It is not compassion when it rewards poor choices and bad behavior to the point that such is encouraged.
> 
> Certainly there is name calling, exaggeration, and demonization evident in both the conservative and liberal camps.  But I believe the average conservative does not exaggerate or demonize people, and it is intellectually dishonest to characterize any criticism or observations as exaggeration or demonization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel this way about both parties!  There really is not much difference between the two when it comes to behavior!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are ignorant of the truth
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


No I'm not.  Both parties are pretty much the same when it comes to bad behavior.  Give me a break!!!


----------



## thanatos144

ChrisL said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly don't hate liberals since I passionately love quite a few of them.  But I do hate liberalism when I believe it hurts people, however well intentioned it might be.  Compassion can be giving people what they need and conservatives do that as efficiently and effectively as liberals do.  But it is not compassion when good intention stifle the incentive or imperative for people to do what they need to do in order to do for themselves and achieve their potential.  It is not compassion when it rewards poor choices and bad behavior to the point that such is encouraged.
> 
> Certainly there is name calling, exaggeration, and demonization evident in both the conservative and liberal camps.  But I believe the average conservative does not exaggerate or demonize people, and it is intellectually dishonest to characterize any criticism or observations as exaggeration or demonization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel this way about both parties!  There really is not much difference between the two when it comes to behavior!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are ignorant of the truth
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not.  Both parties are pretty much the same when it comes to bad behavior.  Give me a break!!!
Click to expand...

Parties are not anything. People are. also if you are getting assaulted do you find yourself above defense?  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## ChrisL

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly don't hate liberals since I passionately love quite a few of them.  But I do hate liberalism when I believe it hurts people, however well intentioned it might be.  Compassion can be giving people what they need and conservatives do that as efficiently and effectively as liberals do.  But it is not compassion when good intention stifle the incentive or imperative for people to do what they need to do in order to do for themselves and achieve their potential.  It is not compassion when it rewards poor choices and bad behavior to the point that such is encouraged.
> 
> Certainly there is name calling, exaggeration, and demonization evident in both the conservative and liberal camps.  But I believe the average conservative does not exaggerate or demonize people, and it is intellectually dishonest to characterize any criticism or observations as exaggeration or demonization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel this way about both parties!  There really is not much difference between the two when it comes to behavior!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are ignorant of the truth
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not.  Both parties are pretty much the same when it comes to bad behavior.  Give me a break!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Parties are not anything. People are. also if you are getting assaulted do you find yourself above defense?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


No, and what does that have to do with this particular thread?  What I am saying is, in regard to insults and low behavior, both parties are guilty and behave the same.


----------



## thanatos144

ChrisL said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly don't hate liberals since I passionately love quite a few of them.  But I do hate liberalism when I believe it hurts people, however well intentioned it might be.  Compassion can be giving people what they need and conservatives do that as efficiently and effectively as liberals do.  But it is not compassion when good intention stifle the incentive or imperative for people to do what they need to do in order to do for themselves and achieve their potential.  It is not compassion when it rewards poor choices and bad behavior to the point that such is encouraged.
> 
> Certainly there is name calling, exaggeration, and demonization evident in both the conservative and liberal camps.  But I believe the average conservative does not exaggerate or demonize people, and it is intellectually dishonest to characterize any criticism or observations as exaggeration or demonization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel this way about both parties!  There really is not much difference between the two when it comes to behavior!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are ignorant of the truth
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not.  Both parties are pretty much the same when it comes to bad behavior.  Give me a break!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Parties are not anything. People are. also if you are getting assaulted do you find yourself above defense?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, and what does that have to do with this particular thread?  What I am saying is, in regard to insults and low behavior, both parties are guilty and behave the same.
Click to expand...

Again bullshit. When has any in the Republican leadership or even those in the party have called back people uncle Tom's and house ******* for not being a republican?  When have they ever called a white democrat a racist that wasn't one?  The problem you have Is you see speaking the truth about the democrat party are low attacks. It isn't low attacks when the evidence is there . 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

By the way the second largest offenders of base less attacks are Paul libertarians 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## ChrisL

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel this way about both parties!  There really is not much difference between the two when it comes to behavior!
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are ignorant of the truth
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not.  Both parties are pretty much the same when it comes to bad behavior.  Give me a break!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Parties are not anything. People are. also if you are getting assaulted do you find yourself above defense?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, and what does that have to do with this particular thread?  What I am saying is, in regard to insults and low behavior, both parties are guilty and behave the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again bullshit. When has any in the Republican leadership or even those in the party have called back people uncle Tom's and house ******* for not being a republican?  When have they ever called a white democrat a racist that wasn't one?  The problem you have Is you see speaking the truth about the democrat party are low attacks. It isn't low attacks when the evidence is there .
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Goodness, do you read threads here by conservatives ever?  Go be angry at someone else please.


----------



## ChrisL

Crazy angry people are not helpful at all.


----------



## Foxfyre

ChrisL said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly don't hate liberals since I passionately love quite a few of them.  But I do hate liberalism when I believe it hurts people, however well intentioned it might be.  Compassion can be giving people what they need and conservatives do that as efficiently and effectively as liberals do.  But it is not compassion when good intention stifle the incentive or imperative for people to do what they need to do in order to do for themselves and achieve their potential.  It is not compassion when it rewards poor choices and bad behavior to the point that such is encouraged.
> 
> Certainly there is name calling, exaggeration, and demonization evident in both the conservative and liberal camps.  But I believe the average conservative does not exaggerate or demonize people, and it is intellectually dishonest to characterize any criticism or observations as exaggeration or demonization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel this way about both parties!  There really is not much difference between the two when it comes to behavior!
Click to expand...


Yes, both parties are guilty of accusing the other in various ways for all the problems and neither party accepts blame for anything.  I will agree with that.

But I was not referring to political parties here, but rather the the way that liberals and conservatives most often discuss sociopolitical issues and events.  With the exception of the shit stirrers and insults-for-sport that is typical on most of these political message boards, I do believe conservatives are more likely to state their argument for their point of view without trash talking some other person or group.  I believe liberals have a much more difficult time making an argument without trash talking some other person or group.

That is a perfectly unscientific personal observation of course.


----------



## Pete7469

ChrisL said:


> Crazy angry people are not helpful at all.



Yes we are.

Marginalizing moonbats using Alinsky Rule #5 is has been useful in demonstrating what a pathetic joke libturds are.

Crazy angry people at SNL effectively destroyed Sarah Palin. It's an effective tactic.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.




Think it's true that if you hate others you hate yourself. As with love, before you can love others you have to love yourself.


----------



## percysunshine

The Great Goose said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> I know right? They acuse half the population of being far left, crossdressing, control freak, Pol Potist, looney lefties.
> 
> It's ridiculous to conflate your enemy to include so many who are not.
> 
> I myself am left wing, but I absolutely loathe looney lefty progressives. They are beastly people.
Click to expand...


Is it getting lonely out there?

The Antarctic resupply vessel only comes once every 6 months.

.


----------



## Vigilante

Putin seems to be nailing the OP's question!


----------



## eagle1462010

Liberals are emotional creatures................it is what they judge any issue on and the facts need not apply in most cases.........
They win elections with Lies..............If you don't like Obama then you are racist.....If you don't like Hillary you are a bigot.........

They purposely cause dissent for either race or class in this country to DIVIDE the nation for political purposes.........and then blame someone else for their own BS.

Our country is on a path to economic Suicide..............anyone with half a brain cell knows this...........knowing this they continue to try and spend more and offer more from the Federal Gov't....................

A sane person driving a car would put on the brakes when driving off the cliff.........A liberal hits the gas pedal saying WE CAN FLY.........

Brain Damage.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## rdean

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


*Why do people hate Liberals?*

Republicans hate everybody.  Not just liberals.  And we all know, most Republicans aren't people.  They are minions.


----------



## Vigilante

rdean said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> *Why do people hate Liberals?*
> 
> Republicans hate everybody.  Not just liberals.  And we all know, most Republicans aren't people.  They are minions.
Click to expand...


Because you subversive scum pay little attention to history, and the PROBLEMS your agendas cause!


----------



## The Great Goose

percysunshine said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> I know right? They acuse half the population of being far left, crossdressing, control freak, Pol Potist, looney lefties.
> 
> It's ridiculous to conflate your enemy to include so many who are not.
> 
> I myself am left wing, but I absolutely loathe looney lefty progressives. They are beastly people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it getting lonely out there?
> 
> The Antarctic resupply vessel only comes once every 6 months.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What means?


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Pete7469

Vigilante said:


>




If American libturds existed in the ussr, they would have been purged in gulags. Our moonbats are parasitic malcontents. The soviets didn't fuck around with people who pissed and moaned about only getting a loaf of bread and a few eggs for a weekly food ration, or having to work 60+ hours a week. People who didn't do "their fair share" as defined by the local commisar usually "disappeared".

Here in the US we have the fattest, laziest and richest "poor" people the galaxy has ever seen. There are hordes of people who exist in ghettos and trailer parks across the country who do absolutely nothing besides consume. Liberalism has turned low income housing into human hog farms.

The soviets would never have tolerated this in their country, but their agents were certainly involved with creating it in ours.


----------



## mamooth

After 295 pages, the conclusion we reach is that those people who say they hate liberals do it for some combination of the following reasons:

1. They're mentally ill.
2. They're jealous.
3. They're treasonous.
4. They have some serious repressed sexual issues.
5. They're not very bright.
6. They have an extreme affinity for herd behavior.
7. They scare easily and need a daddy figure.
8. They have rage issues.
9. Emotionally, they never grew out of adolescence.

I think that covers most everything. So, there's really no need to keep giving more examples that back up that that conclusion.


----------



## bripat9643

mamooth said:


> After 295 pages, the conclusion we reach is that those people who say they hate liberals do it for some combination of the following reasons:
> 
> 1. They're mentally ill.
> 2. They're jealous.
> 3. They're treasonous.
> 4. They have some serious repressed sexual issues.
> 5. They're not very bright.
> 6. They have an extreme affinity for herd behavior.
> 7. They scare easily and need a daddy figure.
> 8. They have rage issues.
> 9. Emotionally, they never grew out of adolescence.
> 
> I think that covers most everything. So, there's really no need to keep giving more examples that back up that that conclusion.



The reality is the hate liberals for the following reasons:

They are intelligent.
They are rational.
They notice what liberals do.


----------



## ChrisL

I don't think these forums are accurate representations of people in general, or at least not people I hang out with.  Lol.  There is a whole LOT of obsessive hatred going on, and I think that has to do with the fact that these types of forums tend to attract such people.  This is their soap box because no one else would take them seriously.    Not everyone of course, but a lot of people.  Some of the peeps here are pretty cool, from both sides of the aisle.  Others . . . not so much.


----------



## MaryL

On the other hand, why is it ok to HATE conservatives? I just want the truth on all maters.


----------



## Igrok_

About liberals: because they cause many problems to people. All the dictator regimes were starting as a liberal. The key point of every revolution is to believe that you deserve more than you have now, so you should kill and rob somebody to achieve new wealth. After doing that you are becoming a boss with a blood on your hands and rule even worse than others did. The end of story.

The main problem here is that liberals think that people since their birth are good. So the more you get them freedom the better people live. But this is wrong position, because people can do a wrong choice deliberately, they can consciously pursue wrong aims, like being a murderer or somethink like that.


----------



## Mindful

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



From my perusals of the forums, I've  never seen so much pathological hatred towards Conservatives. But then, American partisan divisions have reached an all time high. What happened to the "heal the world" mantra espoused by Barack Obama?

Where are all the old style Democrats who  seem to have disappeared into the ether? Such as Kennedy, who could become a hawk when needed. Or Clinton, who was prepared to move to the centre, when expedient. 

Present day liberals bear no relation to Democrats, IMHO.


----------



## PK1

mamooth said:


> After 295 pages, the conclusion we reach is that those people who say they hate liberals do it for some combination of the following reasons:
> 
> 1. They're mentally ill.
> 2. They're jealous.
> 3. They're treasonous.
> 4. They have some serious repressed sexual issues.
> 5. They're not very bright.
> 6. They have an extreme affinity for herd behavior.
> 7. They scare easily and need a daddy figure.
> 8. They have rage issues.
> 9. Emotionally, they never grew out of adolescence.
> 
> I think that covers most everything. So, there's really no need to keep giving more examples that back up that that conclusion.


---
I have not read pages 2-294, but i read enough to agree with you, more or less, but the "*haters*" from EITHER side(s) have many of these issues, esp your #'s:
5. They're not very bright.
6. They have an extreme affinity for herd behavior.
9. Emotionally, they never grew out of adolescence.

The USA was founded on *liberalism* à la Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, etc. 
*Liberalism* is _"a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The former principle is stressed in classical *liberalism* while the latter is more evident in social *liberalism*."_

Today's *conservatives* reflect preservation of THEIR unequal wealth  and opportunities.
.


----------



## PK1

Mindful said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my perusals of the forums, I've  never seen so much pathological hatred towards Conservatives. But then, American partisan divisions have reached an all time high. What happened to the "heal the world" mantra espoused by Barack Obama?
> 
> Where are all the old style Democrats who  seem to have disappeared into the ether? Such as Kennedy, who could become a hawk when needed. Or Clinton, who was prepared to move to the centre, when expedient.
> 
> Present day liberals bear no relation to Democrats, IMHO.
Click to expand...

---
I would say present day conservatives bear no relation to previous generation Republicans.
.


----------



## Foxfyre

Again I have not felt inspired to engage in this discussion, because I think the basis of the OP is intended to stir the pot so to speak rather than encourage serious discussion.  I don't know ANYBODY who hates liberals, not even the most outspoken against everything liberals most often promote.  I know a lot of people, including myself, who hate liberalism--liberalism as it is most often defined in modern day America--when it is forced on people against their will because there is little to commend it and a whole lot to point to as to why it does more harm than good.


----------



## Dhara

Why does anyone hate anyone else?  Hate really isn't about politics.

I can disagree with the GOP without hating Republicans.  I can intensely dislike the current political conversation.


----------



## Pete7469

Foxfyre said:


> Again I have not felt inspired to engage in this discussion, because I think the basis of the OP is intended to stir the pot so to speak rather than encourage serious discussion.  I don't know ANYBODY who hates liberals, not even the most outspoken against everything liberals most often promote.  I know a lot of people, including myself, who hate liberalism--liberalism as it is most often defined in modern day America--when it is forced on people against their will because there is little to commend it and a whole lot to point to as to why it does more harm than good.




You've never met me.

As a collective I hate liberals with a passion. They're mindless parasites that have no benefit to society. Everything they stand for reduces the quality of life for other people. The people they vote for are criminally insane totalitarian sociopaths. The mother fuckers even drive like shit. I would like nothing more than for this country to rise up and elect the most hard core right wing government since Pinochet that completely cuts off the funding that sustains these vacuous assholes, enacts total constitutional fire arms rights, and compels these stupid servile bed wetters to flee the country and take up refugee in Venezuela, Cuba or North Korea where all their insipid collectivist bullshit is established.

Now one on one as an individual I have a few "liberal" friends. There is no political discussion though,because neither of us are willing to change our minds. If I get to know a moonbat and they're at least a decent person (an extreme rarity of course) then I tend to like them in spite of their mental defects and I wouldn't want them to flee in terror but politically they're still my enemy. I want them defeated. If they can manage to live among free people without demanding we fund a nanny state for them, well that's fine. The rest of them can swim to Laos.


----------



## thanatos144

Foxfyre said:


> Again I have not felt inspired to engage in this discussion, because I think the basis of the OP is intended to stir the pot so to speak rather than encourage serious discussion.  I don't know ANYBODY who hates liberals, not even the most outspoken against everything liberals most often promote.  I know a lot of people, including myself, who hate liberalism--liberalism as it is most often defined in modern day America--when it is forced on people against their will because there is little to commend it and a whole lot to point to as to why it does more harm than good.


So you took time to post that you don't want to post because having a discussion on a forum is bad because you didn't get to dictate what was being discussed? :

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Foxfyre

Pete7469 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again I have not felt inspired to engage in this discussion, because I think the basis of the OP is intended to stir the pot so to speak rather than encourage serious discussion.  I don't know ANYBODY who hates liberals, not even the most outspoken against everything liberals most often promote.  I know a lot of people, including myself, who hate liberalism--liberalism as it is most often defined in modern day America--when it is forced on people against their will because there is little to commend it and a whole lot to point to as to why it does more harm than good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've never met me.
> 
> As a collective I hate liberals with a passion. They're mindless parasites that have no benefit to society. Everything they stand for reduces the quality of life for other people. The people they vote for are criminally insane totalitarian sociopaths. The mother fuckers even drive like shit. I would like nothing more than for this country to rise up and elect the most hard core right wing government since Pinochet that completely cuts off the funding that sustains these vacuous assholes, enacts total constitutional fire arms rights, and compels these stupid servile bed wetters to flee the country and take up refugee in Venezuela, Cuba or North Korea where all their insipid collectivist bullshit is established.
> 
> 
> 
> Now one on one as an individual I have a few "liberal" friends. There is no political discussion though,because neither of us are willing to change our minds. If I get to know a moonbat and they're at least a decent person (an extreme rarity of course) then I tend to like them in spite of their mental defects and I wouldn't want them to flee in terror but politically they're still my enemy. I want them defeated. If they can manage to live among free people without demanding we fund a nanny state for them, well that's fine. The rest of them can swim to Laos.
Click to expand...



What makes you think Laos would want them?      And you're right, I don't know you.  But the fact that you have liberal friends, as do I, suggests that your emphatic rhetoric and the reality of your life don't quite mesh.  "Hate" is such a strong word.  It suggests that you would not throw a person a rope if he was drowning or perhaps would drown him/her given opportunity to do so.  I haven't seen that characteristic in you.

So it comes down to the old standby of hate the sin, love the sinner.  That doesn't mean we have to tolerate them or condone their intentions or like them or anything like that, but if we acknowledge they have a right to live and be who they are, then that is not hate.  To deny them the right to screw up our lives is not hate.  It is simply practical self defense.


----------



## Foxfyre

thanatos144 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again I have not felt inspired to engage in this discussion, because I think the basis of the OP is intended to stir the pot so to speak rather than encourage serious discussion.  I don't know ANYBODY who hates liberals, not even the most outspoken against everything liberals most often promote.  I know a lot of people, including myself, who hate liberalism--liberalism as it is most often defined in modern day America--when it is forced on people against their will because there is little to commend it and a whole lot to point to as to why it does more harm than good.
> 
> 
> 
> So you took time to post that you don't want to post because having a discussion on a forum is bad because you didn't get to dictate what was being discussed? :
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I don't believe that is what I said.  But do have a pleasant day.


----------



## Pete7469

Foxfyre said:


> What makes you think Laos would want them?      And you're right, I don't know you.  But the fact that you have liberal friends, as do I, suggests that your emphatic rhetoric and the reality of your life don't quite mesh.  "Hate" is such a strong word.  It suggests that you would not throw a person a rope if he was drowning or perhaps would drown him/her given opportunity to do so.  I haven't seen that characteristic in you.
> 
> So it comes down to the old standby of hate the sin, love the sinner.  That doesn't mean we have to tolerate them or condone their intentions or like them or anything like that, but if we acknowledge they have a right to live and be who they are, then that is not hate.  To deny them the right to screw up our lives is not hate.  It is simply practical self defense.



I suppose you're right. 

Just don't tell them that. I prefer if they believe I'd let them drown.


----------



## Wake

I don't think people in general hate liberals, or conservatives for that matter.

People are people. There're just views along these party groups that annoy various people. For example I get annoyed when some liberals argue that if you're genetically a man but *feel* you're a woman then scientifically you're a woman, and I get annoyed when some conservatives try to single out all Muslims or put restrictions and extra scrutiny on them when it's only some of the Muslims who are extremist/sympathizers. 

No one's perfect, and each and every one of us has or does subscribe to faulty beliefs and opinions about people and things.


----------



## Dhara

Wake--

Regarding your annoyance toward transgender M to F people.   Does it matter if it's "scientific"for a person to do whatever is needed to feel happy and true to themselves?

As long as it isn't hurting that one or you, why would it annoy you?


----------



## Ernie S.

I hate what Liberalism/Progressivism has done to my country. 

I hate no man. So far, I've not met anyone worthy of the energy it would take to actually hate.


----------



## Dhara

Hmm....


----------



## Wake

Dhara said:


> Wake--
> 
> Regarding your annoyance toward transgender M to F people.   Does it matter if it's "scientific"for a person to do whatever is needed to feel happy and true to themselves?
> 
> As long as it isn't hurting that one or you, why would it annoy you?



Honestly, and with respect to you, I am not going to derail this thread into a discussion about this, so I will share one thought and leave it at that.

People have the right to do what they want to themselves. It is when they do this, and then claim it as scientific, that it becomes an issue to address. As long as you do not make claims to scientific fact—and this includes the religious as well who do attempt this—you may do whatever you wish to feel happy and true to yourself so long as you are not hurting anyone else.


----------



## Dhara

Wake said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wake--
> 
> Regarding your annoyance toward transgender M to F people.   Does it matter if it's "scientific"for a person to do whatever is needed to feel happy and true to themselves?
> 
> As long as it isn't hurting that one or you, why would it annoy you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, and with respect to you, I am not going to derail this thread into a discussion about this, so I will share one thought and leave it at that.
> 
> People have the right to do what they want to themselves. It is when they do this, and then claim it as scientific, that it becomes an issue to address. As long as you do not make claims to scientific fact—and this includes the religious as well who do attempt this—you may do whatever you wish to feel happy and true to yourself so long as you are not hurting anyone else.
Click to expand...

Well, it's debate material.  There are some correlation that can be looked at scientifically for the transgender phenomenon.  The point is whether you can have an open mind or not


----------



## Wake

Ernie S. said:


> I hate what Liberalism/Progressivism has done to my country.
> 
> I hate no man. So far, I've not met anyone worthy of the energy it would take to actually hate.



I think this is a good idea. There's aspects of each ideology that I don't agree with, but in spite of that I don't allow a difference on belief cause me to hate someone.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wake said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate what Liberalism/Progressivism has done to my country.
> 
> I hate no man. So far, I've not met anyone worthy of the energy it would take to actually hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a good idea. There's aspects of each ideology that I don't agree with, but in spite of that I don't allow a difference on belief cause me to hate someone.
Click to expand...

I'm 66 years old. If I had allowed myself to feel hate for every one I've disagreed with over the years, the pile of bodies would be huge. My dad was a Democrat all his life. We had many a spirited debate on politics, but I loved him always.
It's easier to love than hate and feels better too.
Assholes are only worth apathy.


----------



## ChrisL

Ernie S. said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate what Liberalism/Progressivism has done to my country.
> 
> I hate no man. So far, I've not met anyone worthy of the energy it would take to actually hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a good idea. There's aspects of each ideology that I don't agree with, but in spite of that I don't allow a difference on belief cause me to hate someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm 66 years old. If I had allowed myself to feel hate for every one I've disagreed with over the years, the pile of bodies would be huge. My dad was a Democrat all his life. We had many a spirited debate on politics, but I loved him always.
> *It's easier to love than hate *and feels better too.
> Assholes are only worth apathy.
Click to expand...


Or ignore.  Lol.


----------



## koshergrl

We loathe liberals because they are traitorous, dishonest, and have no respect for people or for life itself.


----------



## Ernie S.

ChrisL said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate what Liberalism/Progressivism has done to my country.
> 
> I hate no man. So far, I've not met anyone worthy of the energy it would take to actually hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a good idea. There's aspects of each ideology that I don't agree with, but in spite of that I don't allow a difference on belief cause me to hate someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm 66 years old. If I had allowed myself to feel hate for every one I've disagreed with over the years, the pile of bodies would be huge. My dad was a Democrat all his life. We had many a spirited debate on politics, but I loved him always.
> *It's easier to love than hate *and feels better too.
> Assholes are only worth apathy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or ignore.  Lol.
Click to expand...

Some get that, some get repeated beat downs.


----------



## Dhara

Ignore is the way to go for me.


----------



## Foxfyre

ChrisL said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate what Liberalism/Progressivism has done to my country.
> 
> I hate no man. So far, I've not met anyone worthy of the energy it would take to actually hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a good idea. There's aspects of each ideology that I don't agree with, but in spite of that I don't allow a difference on belief cause me to hate someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm 66 years old. If I had allowed myself to feel hate for every one I've disagreed with over the years, the pile of bodies would be huge. My dad was a Democrat all his life. We had many a spirited debate on politics, but I loved him always.
> *It's easier to love than hate *and feels better too.
> Assholes are only worth apathy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or ignore.  Lol.
Click to expand...


We can ignore those who are simply being who and what they are no matter how offensive or non productive or wrong that may appear to us.  Not so easy to ignore those who have the power and intend to use it to impose their offensive or non productive or dangerous or wrong values, ideas, programs, requirements on the rest of us.


----------



## Dhara

Foxfyre said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate what Liberalism/Progressivism has done to my country.
> 
> I hate no man. So far, I've not met anyone worthy of the energy it would take to actually hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a good idea. There's aspects of each ideology that I don't agree with, but in spite of that I don't allow a difference on belief cause me to hate someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm 66 years old. If I had allowed myself to feel hate for every one I've disagreed with over the years, the pile of bodies would be huge. My dad was a Democrat all his life. We had many a spirited debate on politics, but I loved him always.
> *It's easier to love than hate *and feels better too.
> Assholes are only worth apathy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or ignore.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can ignore those who are simply being who and what they are no matter how offensive or non productive or wrong that may appear to us.  Not so easy to ignore those who have the power and intend to use it to impose their offensive or non productive or dangerous or wrong values, ideas, programs, requirements on the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, none of us are victims.  IMO, dealing with bad behavior in others is an inside job.  We can't go around policing the universe.  We can take space from someone who is determined to harm.  Pull far enough back so that the heart can remain open and compassionate to ourselves and to the one doing harm.


----------



## Ernie S.

Dhara said:


> Ignore is the way to go for me.


Some go on ignore, usually those so stupid or dishonest as to be entirely without value.
Others I find mildly amusing. Joe is like a slinky completely useless, but fun to push down the stairs.


----------



## Dhara

Fun to push down the stairs?  Maybe you actually like the guy enough to continue to have contact with him, however aggressively!


----------



## Foxfyre

Dhara said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate what Liberalism/Progressivism has done to my country.
> 
> I hate no man. So far, I've not met anyone worthy of the energy it would take to actually hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a good idea. There's aspects of each ideology that I don't agree with, but in spite of that I don't allow a difference on belief cause me to hate someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm 66 years old. If I had allowed myself to feel hate for every one I've disagreed with over the years, the pile of bodies would be huge. My dad was a Democrat all his life. We had many a spirited debate on politics, but I loved him always.
> *It's easier to love than hate *and feels better too.
> Assholes are only worth apathy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or ignore.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can ignore those who are simply being who and what they are no matter how offensive or non productive or wrong that may appear to us.  Not so easy to ignore those who have the power and intend to use it to impose their offensive or non productive or dangerous or wrong values, ideas, programs, requirements on the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, none of us are victims.  IMO, dealing with bad behavior in others is an inside job.  We can't go around policing the universe.  We can take space from someone who is determined to harm.  Pull far enough back so that the heart can remain open and compassionate to ourselves and to the one doing harm.
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with our attitude toward one doing harm.  It has everything to do with not allowing others to  deliberately or inadvertently do harm to us.  And when it comes to those with power to influence and/or pass legislation or write laws/regulations that bind us, it really does come down to a matter of self defense.


----------



## Dhara

Foxfyre said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a good idea. There's aspects of each ideology that I don't agree with, but in spite of that I don't allow a difference on belief cause me to hate someone.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 66 years old. If I had allowed myself to feel hate for every one I've disagreed with over the years, the pile of bodies would be huge. My dad was a Democrat all his life. We had many a spirited debate on politics, but I loved him always.
> *It's easier to love than hate *and feels better too.
> Assholes are only worth apathy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or ignore.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can ignore those who are simply being who and what they are no matter how offensive or non productive or wrong that may appear to us.  Not so easy to ignore those who have the power and intend to use it to impose their offensive or non productive or dangerous or wrong values, ideas, programs, requirements on the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, none of us are victims.  IMO, dealing with bad behavior in others is an inside job.  We can't go around policing the universe.  We can take space from someone who is determined to harm.  Pull far enough back so that the heart can remain open and compassionate to ourselves and to the one doing harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with our attitude toward one doing harm.  It has everything to do with not allowing others to  deliberately or inadvertently do harm to us.  And when it comes to those with power to influence and/or pass legislation or write laws/regulations that bind us, it really does come down to a matter of self defense.
Click to expand...

OK.  We see things differently.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dhara said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 66 years old. If I had allowed myself to feel hate for every one I've disagreed with over the years, the pile of bodies would be huge. My dad was a Democrat all his life. We had many a spirited debate on politics, but I loved him always.
> *It's easier to love than hate *and feels better too.
> Assholes are only worth apathy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or ignore.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can ignore those who are simply being who and what they are no matter how offensive or non productive or wrong that may appear to us.  Not so easy to ignore those who have the power and intend to use it to impose their offensive or non productive or dangerous or wrong values, ideas, programs, requirements on the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, none of us are victims.  IMO, dealing with bad behavior in others is an inside job.  We can't go around policing the universe.  We can take space from someone who is determined to harm.  Pull far enough back so that the heart can remain open and compassionate to ourselves and to the one doing harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with our attitude toward one doing harm.  It has everything to do with not allowing others to  deliberately or inadvertently do harm to us.  And when it comes to those with power to influence and/or pass legislation or write laws/regulations that bind us, it really does come down to a matter of self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.  We see things differently.
Click to expand...


Probably so.  But as long as political correctness requires us to see liberalism as something nobel and honorable even as it does serious harm to our society and form of government, it is a shame that so many see things differently.


----------



## Ernie S.

Dhara said:


> Fun to push down the stairs?  Maybe you actually like the guy enough to continue to have contact with him, however aggressively!


I'd rather push him down the stairs. 
He's so totally slinky, I delight in ridiculing him.


----------



## Dhara

Foxfyre said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or ignore.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can ignore those who are simply being who and what they are no matter how offensive or non productive or wrong that may appear to us.  Not so easy to ignore those who have the power and intend to use it to impose their offensive or non productive or dangerous or wrong values, ideas, programs, requirements on the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, none of us are victims.  IMO, dealing with bad behavior in others is an inside job.  We can't go around policing the universe.  We can take space from someone who is determined to harm.  Pull far enough back so that the heart can remain open and compassionate to ourselves and to the one doing harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with our attitude toward one doing harm.  It has everything to do with not allowing others to  deliberately or inadvertently do harm to us.  And when it comes to those with power to influence and/or pass legislation or write laws/regulations that bind us, it really does come down to a matter of self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.  We see things differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably so.  But as long as political correctness requires us to see liberalism as something nobel and honorable even as it does serious harm to our society and form of government, it is a shame that so many see things differently.
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear you say that, (as a lifelong, liberal).   As far as nobility is concerned, if I can see something honorable and noble in conservative people regardless of their political opinions, I wonder why you can't see that in liberals.

It all comes from caring, and feeling from the bottom of each of our hearts that the policies coming out of compromise between the partiies is the way to accomplish great benefit for our country.

IMO, good heart doesn't have a political position.  We lose that everytime we objectify each other instead of connecting as fellow human beings and American citizens.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Dhara

Ernie S. said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fun to push down the stairs?  Maybe you actually like the guy enough to continue to have contact with him, however aggressively!
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather push him down the stairs.
> He's so totally slinky, I delight in ridiculing him.
Click to expand...

Hmm, taking delight in ridicule.  That doesn't work for me.  It makes me feel bad to do that.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dhara said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can ignore those who are simply being who and what they are no matter how offensive or non productive or wrong that may appear to us.  Not so easy to ignore those who have the power and intend to use it to impose their offensive or non productive or dangerous or wrong values, ideas, programs, requirements on the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, none of us are victims.  IMO, dealing with bad behavior in others is an inside job.  We can't go around policing the universe.  We can take space from someone who is determined to harm.  Pull far enough back so that the heart can remain open and compassionate to ourselves and to the one doing harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with our attitude toward one doing harm.  It has everything to do with not allowing others to  deliberately or inadvertently do harm to us.  And when it comes to those with power to influence and/or pass legislation or write laws/regulations that bind us, it really does come down to a matter of self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.  We see things differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably so.  But as long as political correctness requires us to see liberalism as something nobel and honorable even as it does serious harm to our society and form of government, it is a shame that so many see things differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry to hear you say that, (as a lifelong, liberal).   As far as nobility is concerned, if I can see something honorable and noble in conservative people regardless of their political opinions, I wonder why you can't see that in liberals.
> 
> It all comes from caring, and feeling from the bottom of each of our hearts that the policies coming out of compromise between the partiies is the way to accomplish great benefit for our country.
> 
> IMO, good heart doesn't have a political position.  We lose that everytime we objectify each other instead of connecting as fellow human beings and American citizens.
> 
> Just my opinion.
Click to expand...


Actually I do see nobility as human beings in many liberals I know personally--some I would trust with anything I own including my life.  I have become friends with a number of people who identify themselves as liberals in this strange internet world.  The liberals who post in the Coffee Shop now and then are some of my favorite people at USMB for instance.

The difference between you and me--maybe, and I could be wrong here as I am just getting to know you and so far my impressions have been positive--is that I can separate the liberal from the liberalism he/she believes in.  It is not the liberal, but the liberalism he/she promotes that I object to.

However, I will allow anybody their beliefs and convictions in peace, no matter how wrong I think they are so long as they allow me my own beliefs and convictions in peace.  But when I think progressives/liberals are forcing harm on others I will speak up and prevent the harm if I can.  And when somebody tries to force damaging liberalism on me or attempts to punish me because I don't see things as they see them, that's when I will push back as hard as I am able.


----------



## Dhara

Foxfyre said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, none of us are victims.  IMO, dealing with bad behavior in others is an inside job.  We can't go around policing the universe.  We can take space from someone who is determined to harm.  Pull far enough back so that the heart can remain open and compassionate to ourselves and to the one doing harm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with our attitude toward one doing harm.  It has everything to do with not allowing others to  deliberately or inadvertently do harm to us.  And when it comes to those with power to influence and/or pass legislation or write laws/regulations that bind us, it really does come down to a matter of self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.  We see things differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably so.  But as long as political correctness requires us to see liberalism as something nobel and honorable even as it does serious harm to our society and form of government, it is a shame that so many see things differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry to hear you say that, (as a lifelong, liberal).   As far as nobility is concerned, if I can see something honorable and noble in conservative people regardless of their political opinions, I wonder why you can't see that in liberals.
> 
> It all comes from caring, and feeling from the bottom of each of our hearts that the policies coming out of compromise between the partiies is the way to accomplish great benefit for our country.
> 
> IMO, good heart doesn't have a political position.  We lose that everytime we objectify each other instead of connecting as fellow human beings and American citizens.
> 
> Just my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I do see nobility as human beings in many liberals I know personally--some I would trust with anything I own including my life.  I have become friends with a number of people who identify themselves as liberals in this strange internet world.  The difference between you and me is that I can separate the liberal from the liberalism he/she believes in.  It is not the liberal, but the liberalism he/she promotes that I object to.
> 
> I will allow anybody their beliefs and convictions in peace, no matter how wrong I think they are so long as they allow me my own beliefs and convictions in peace.  But when I think progressives/liberals are forcing harm on others I will speak up and prevent the harm if I can.  And when somebody tries to force damaging liberalism on me or attempts to punish me because I don't see things as they see them, that's when I will push back as hard as I am able.
Click to expand...

First of all, one way we differ is I don't believe in "liberalism".  There are policies that are considered liberal, that I support.  For instance, a woman's right to choose.  Reproductive rights for women.

I support Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, WIC and funding public education, public employees like fire fighters, law enforcement.

"Liberalism" is invented by the RW as a way to demonize other citizens.  I think that's wrong.

I don't broad brush Muslims or think it's wrong to allow Syrian refugees to emigrate to the US.  What it gets down to is you and I think differently.  As American citizens, we have that right.  Plenty of people I love happen to be conservatives.  We just don't emphasize our differences.  We love each other as people, as human beings.  I know I'd have their backs and I'm secure they'd have mine.

As for who you think is "punishing" you.  I find that pretty curious.  What is it you feel "punished" about?  And who do you think is "punishing" you?

How is it you think anyone is "forcing you" to accept another's convictions?  We are, each of us, free to disagree passionately with each other.  And free to love each other, find common ground.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dhara said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with our attitude toward one doing harm.  It has everything to do with not allowing others to  deliberately or inadvertently do harm to us.  And when it comes to those with power to influence and/or pass legislation or write laws/regulations that bind us, it really does come down to a matter of self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> OK.  We see things differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably so.  But as long as political correctness requires us to see liberalism as something nobel and honorable even as it does serious harm to our society and form of government, it is a shame that so many see things differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry to hear you say that, (as a lifelong, liberal).   As far as nobility is concerned, if I can see something honorable and noble in conservative people regardless of their political opinions, I wonder why you can't see that in liberals.
> 
> It all comes from caring, and feeling from the bottom of each of our hearts that the policies coming out of compromise between the partiies is the way to accomplish great benefit for our country.
> 
> IMO, good heart doesn't have a political position.  We lose that everytime we objectify each other instead of connecting as fellow human beings and American citizens.
> 
> Just my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I do see nobility as human beings in many liberals I know personally--some I would trust with anything I own including my life.  I have become friends with a number of people who identify themselves as liberals in this strange internet world.  The difference between you and me is that I can separate the liberal from the liberalism he/she believes in.  It is not the liberal, but the liberalism he/she promotes that I object to.
> 
> I will allow anybody their beliefs and convictions in peace, no matter how wrong I think they are so long as they allow me my own beliefs and convictions in peace.  But when I think progressives/liberals are forcing harm on others I will speak up and prevent the harm if I can.  And when somebody tries to force damaging liberalism on me or attempts to punish me because I don't see things as they see them, that's when I will push back as hard as I am able.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, one way we differ is I don't believe in "liberalism".  There are policies that are considered liberal, that I support.  For instance, a woman's right to choose.  Reproductive rights for women.
> 
> I support Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, WIC and funding public education, public employees like fire fighters, law enforcement.
> 
> "Liberalism" is invented by the RW as a way to demonize other citizens.  I think that's wrong.
> 
> I don't broad brush Muslims or think it's wrong to allow Syrian refugees to emigrate to the US.  What it gets down to is you and I think differently.  As American citizens, we have that right.  Plenty of people I love happen to be conservatives.  We just don't emphasize our differences.  We love each other as people, as human beings.  I know I'd have their backs and I'm secure they'd have mine.
> 
> As for who you think is "punishing" you.  I find that pretty curious.  What is it you feel "punished" about?  And who do you think is "punishing" you?
> 
> How is it you think anyone is "forcing you" to accept another's convictions?  We are, each of us, free to disagree passionately with each other.  And free to love each other, find common ground.
Click to expand...


I don't believe I said anybody was.  But if you don't believe in liberalism then there is no point in continuing this discussion.  I have no problem with what you believe or what you support until what you believe and what you support requires unwilling contribution or participation by me.  It is as simple as that.  So far I have not met the liberal who would not support the government forcing me to participate in and/or contribute to the liberal's agenda and most would applaud the government punishing me if I do not.

And that in a nutshell is why I hate liberalism.  But since you don't believe in it. . . .


----------



## Ernie S.

Dhara said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fun to push down the stairs?  Maybe you actually like the guy enough to continue to have contact with him, however aggressively!
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather push him down the stairs.
> He's so totally slinky, I delight in ridiculing him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm, taking delight in ridicule.  That doesn't work for me.  It makes me feel bad to do that.
Click to expand...

Good for you! I have no idea how old you are, but obviously you still have some youthful idealism left. Congratulations! 
I'm 66 and about done kissing ass. If someone irritates me, I'll tell him. If he's an ass hole, I'll tell him. If he's intellectually dishonest, I'll tell him that too. If he's all three, I'll push him down the stairs and laugh at him all the way down.


----------



## Dhara

Ernie S. said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fun to push down the stairs?  Maybe you actually like the guy enough to continue to have contact with him, however aggressively!
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather push him down the stairs.
> He's so totally slinky, I delight in ridiculing him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm, taking delight in ridicule.  That doesn't work for me.  It makes me feel bad to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you! I have no idea how old you are, but obviously you still have some youthful idealism left. Congratulations!
> I'm 66 and about done kissing ass. If someone irritates me, I'll tell him. If he's an ass hole, I'll tell him. If he's intellectually dishonest, I'll tell him that too. If he's all three, I'll push him down the stairs and laugh at him all the way down.
Click to expand...

OK.  I hear you.  Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Dhara

Foxfyre said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK.  We see things differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably so.  But as long as political correctness requires us to see liberalism as something nobel and honorable even as it does serious harm to our society and form of government, it is a shame that so many see things differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry to hear you say that, (as a lifelong, liberal).   As far as nobility is concerned, if I can see something honorable and noble in conservative people regardless of their political opinions, I wonder why you can't see that in liberals.
> 
> It all comes from caring, and feeling from the bottom of each of our hearts that the policies coming out of compromise between the partiies is the way to accomplish great benefit for our country.
> 
> IMO, good heart doesn't have a political position.  We lose that everytime we objectify each other instead of connecting as fellow human beings and American citizens.
> 
> Just my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I do see nobility as human beings in many liberals I know personally--some I would trust with anything I own including my life.  I have become friends with a number of people who identify themselves as liberals in this strange internet world.  The difference between you and me is that I can separate the liberal from the liberalism he/she believes in.  It is not the liberal, but the liberalism he/she promotes that I object to.
> 
> I will allow anybody their beliefs and convictions in peace, no matter how wrong I think they are so long as they allow me my own beliefs and convictions in peace.  But when I think progressives/liberals are forcing harm on others I will speak up and prevent the harm if I can.  And when somebody tries to force damaging liberalism on me or attempts to punish me because I don't see things as they see them, that's when I will push back as hard as I am able.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, one way we differ is I don't believe in "liberalism".  There are policies that are considered liberal, that I support.  For instance, a woman's right to choose.  Reproductive rights for women.
> 
> I support Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, WIC and funding public education, public employees like fire fighters, law enforcement.
> 
> "Liberalism" is invented by the RW as a way to demonize other citizens.  I think that's wrong.
> 
> I don't broad brush Muslims or think it's wrong to allow Syrian refugees to emigrate to the US.  What it gets down to is you and I think differently.  As American citizens, we have that right.  Plenty of people I love happen to be conservatives.  We just don't emphasize our differences.  We love each other as people, as human beings.  I know I'd have their backs and I'm secure they'd have mine.
> 
> As for who you think is "punishing" you.  I find that pretty curious.  What is it you feel "punished" about?  And who do you think is "punishing" you?
> 
> How is it you think anyone is "forcing you" to accept another's convictions?  We are, each of us, free to disagree passionately with each other.  And free to love each other, find common ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe I said anybody was.  But if you don't believe in liberalism then there is no point in continuing this discussion.  I have no problem with what you believe or what you support until what you believe and what you support requires unwilling contribution or participation by me.  It is as simple as that.  So far I have not met the liberal who would not support the government forcing me to participate in and/or contribute to the liberal's agenda and most would applaud the government punishing me if I do not.
> 
> And that in a nutshell is why I hate liberalism.  But since you don't believe in it. . . .
Click to expand...

Hey, I still don't understand how you feel forced to participate in something you don't want.  If you mean something like, "I'm forced to participate in war because my tax dollars support the military", then maybe I understand.  That's me having to participate in something I don't support.

But no one is "forcing me".   I willingly pay taxes because they also pay for things I need.  Libraries, schools, police and fire departments, roads and bridges.  We all have to contribute to things we don't necessarily agree with or support as the price of citizenship in this great nation.

Nothing to do with your belief in "liberalism".

I just looked up "liberalism".  Here's the definition I found.  It doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.


*Liberalism* is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.
*Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*Liberalism*
Wikipedia


----------



## Dhara

And then there is this one:

*Liberalism,* political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe thatgovernment is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in “Common Sense” (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power.
liberalism | politics


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with our attitude toward one doing harm.  It has everything to do with not allowing others to  deliberately or inadvertently do harm to us.  And when it comes to those with power to influence and/or pass legislation or write laws/regulations that bind us, it really does come down to a matter of self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> OK.  We see things differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably so.  But as long as political correctness requires us to see liberalism as something nobel and honorable even as it does serious harm to our society and form of government, it is a shame that so many see things differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry to hear you say that, (as a lifelong, liberal).   As far as nobility is concerned, if I can see something honorable and noble in conservative people regardless of their political opinions, I wonder why you can't see that in liberals.
> 
> It all comes from caring, and feeling from the bottom of each of our hearts that the policies coming out of compromise between the partiies is the way to accomplish great benefit for our country.
> 
> IMO, good heart doesn't have a political position.  We lose that everytime we objectify each other instead of connecting as fellow human beings and American citizens.
> 
> Just my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I do see nobility as human beings in many liberals I know personally--some I would trust with anything I own including my life.  I have become friends with a number of people who identify themselves as liberals in this strange internet world.  The difference between you and me is that I can separate the liberal from the liberalism he/she believes in.  It is not the liberal, but the liberalism he/she promotes that I object to.
> 
> I will allow anybody their beliefs and convictions in peace, no matter how wrong I think they are so long as they allow me my own beliefs and convictions in peace.  But when I think progressives/liberals are forcing harm on others I will speak up and prevent the harm if I can.  And when somebody tries to force damaging liberalism on me or attempts to punish me because I don't see things as they see them, that's when I will push back as hard as I am able.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, one way we differ is I don't believe in "liberalism".  There are policies that are considered liberal, that I support.  For instance, a woman's right to choose.  Reproductive rights for women.
> 
> I support Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, WIC and funding public education, public employees like fire fighters, law enforcement.
> 
> "Liberalism" is invented by the RW as a way to demonize other citizens.  I think that's wrong.
> 
> I don't broad brush Muslims or think it's wrong to allow Syrian refugees to emigrate to the US.  What it gets down to is you and I think differently.  As American citizens, we have that right.  Plenty of people I love happen to be conservatives.  We just don't emphasize our differences.  We love each other as people, as human beings.  I know I'd have their backs and I'm secure they'd have mine.
> 
> As for who you think is "punishing" you.  I find that pretty curious.  What is it you feel "punished" about?  And who do you think is "punishing" you?
> 
> How is it you think anyone is "forcing you" to accept another's convictions?  We are, each of us, free to disagree passionately with each other.  And free to love each other, find common ground.
Click to expand...


I agree with most of your post except for the refugees part.  I want those resources (which are limited) to go to our own citizens.  I also don't see a need to invite "trouble" into our country because of some "PC" sense of obligation to people from other countries.  Most of these coming here are likely to be unskilled or low skilled and are going to use resources that should be spent on our own.  Just my opinion on that matter.


----------



## ChrisL

Foxfyre said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK.  We see things differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably so.  But as long as political correctness requires us to see liberalism as something nobel and honorable even as it does serious harm to our society and form of government, it is a shame that so many see things differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry to hear you say that, (as a lifelong, liberal).   As far as nobility is concerned, if I can see something honorable and noble in conservative people regardless of their political opinions, I wonder why you can't see that in liberals.
> 
> It all comes from caring, and feeling from the bottom of each of our hearts that the policies coming out of compromise between the partiies is the way to accomplish great benefit for our country.
> 
> IMO, good heart doesn't have a political position.  We lose that everytime we objectify each other instead of connecting as fellow human beings and American citizens.
> 
> Just my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I do see nobility as human beings in many liberals I know personally--some I would trust with anything I own including my life.  I have become friends with a number of people who identify themselves as liberals in this strange internet world.  The difference between you and me is that I can separate the liberal from the liberalism he/she believes in.  It is not the liberal, but the liberalism he/she promotes that I object to.
> 
> I will allow anybody their beliefs and convictions in peace, no matter how wrong I think they are so long as they allow me my own beliefs and convictions in peace.  But when I think progressives/liberals are forcing harm on others I will speak up and prevent the harm if I can.  And when somebody tries to force damaging liberalism on me or attempts to punish me because I don't see things as they see them, that's when I will push back as hard as I am able.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, one way we differ is I don't believe in "liberalism".  There are policies that are considered liberal, that I support.  For instance, a woman's right to choose.  Reproductive rights for women.
> 
> I support Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, WIC and funding public education, public employees like fire fighters, law enforcement.
> 
> "Liberalism" is invented by the RW as a way to demonize other citizens.  I think that's wrong.
> 
> I don't broad brush Muslims or think it's wrong to allow Syrian refugees to emigrate to the US.  What it gets down to is you and I think differently.  As American citizens, we have that right.  Plenty of people I love happen to be conservatives.  We just don't emphasize our differences.  We love each other as people, as human beings.  I know I'd have their backs and I'm secure they'd have mine.
> 
> As for who you think is "punishing" you.  I find that pretty curious.  What is it you feel "punished" about?  And who do you think is "punishing" you?
> 
> How is it you think anyone is "forcing you" to accept another's convictions?  We are, each of us, free to disagree passionately with each other.  And free to love each other, find common ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe I said anybody was.  But if you don't believe in liberalism then there is no point in continuing this discussion.  I have no problem with what you believe or what you support until what you believe and what you support requires unwilling contribution or participation by me.  It is as simple as that.  So far I have not met the liberal who would not support the government forcing me to participate in and/or contribute to the liberal's agenda and most would applaud the government punishing me if I do not.
> 
> And that in a nutshell is why I hate liberalism.  But since you don't believe in it. . . .
Click to expand...


I am more of a mixed bag and support some views from each side but I'm totally against others.    I could never side completely with either ideology.


----------



## Dhara

ChrisL said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably so.  But as long as political correctness requires us to see liberalism as something nobel and honorable even as it does serious harm to our society and form of government, it is a shame that so many see things differently.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear you say that, (as a lifelong, liberal).   As far as nobility is concerned, if I can see something honorable and noble in conservative people regardless of their political opinions, I wonder why you can't see that in liberals.
> 
> It all comes from caring, and feeling from the bottom of each of our hearts that the policies coming out of compromise between the partiies is the way to accomplish great benefit for our country.
> 
> IMO, good heart doesn't have a political position.  We lose that everytime we objectify each other instead of connecting as fellow human beings and American citizens.
> 
> Just my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I do see nobility as human beings in many liberals I know personally--some I would trust with anything I own including my life.  I have become friends with a number of people who identify themselves as liberals in this strange internet world.  The difference between you and me is that I can separate the liberal from the liberalism he/she believes in.  It is not the liberal, but the liberalism he/she promotes that I object to.
> 
> I will allow anybody their beliefs and convictions in peace, no matter how wrong I think they are so long as they allow me my own beliefs and convictions in peace.  But when I think progressives/liberals are forcing harm on others I will speak up and prevent the harm if I can.  And when somebody tries to force damaging liberalism on me or attempts to punish me because I don't see things as they see them, that's when I will push back as hard as I am able.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, one way we differ is I don't believe in "liberalism".  There are policies that are considered liberal, that I support.  For instance, a woman's right to choose.  Reproductive rights for women.
> 
> I support Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, WIC and funding public education, public employees like fire fighters, law enforcement.
> 
> "Liberalism" is invented by the RW as a way to demonize other citizens.  I think that's wrong.
> 
> I don't broad brush Muslims or think it's wrong to allow Syrian refugees to emigrate to the US.  What it gets down to is you and I think differently.  As American citizens, we have that right.  Plenty of people I love happen to be conservatives.  We just don't emphasize our differences.  We love each other as people, as human beings.  I know I'd have their backs and I'm secure they'd have mine.
> 
> As for who you think is "punishing" you.  I find that pretty curious.  What is it you feel "punished" about?  And who do you think is "punishing" you?
> 
> How is it you think anyone is "forcing you" to accept another's convictions?  We are, each of us, free to disagree passionately with each other.  And free to love each other, find common ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe I said anybody was.  But if you don't believe in liberalism then there is no point in continuing this discussion.  I have no problem with what you believe or what you support until what you believe and what you support requires unwilling contribution or participation by me.  It is as simple as that.  So far I have not met the liberal who would not support the government forcing me to participate in and/or contribute to the liberal's agenda and most would applaud the government punishing me if I do not.
> 
> And that in a nutshell is why I hate liberalism.  But since you don't believe in it. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am more of a mixed bag and support some views from each side but I'm totally against others.    I could never side completely with either ideology.
Click to expand...

I don't consider the two political parties as "ideologies".


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear you say that, (as a lifelong, liberal).   As far as nobility is concerned, if I can see something honorable and noble in conservative people regardless of their political opinions, I wonder why you can't see that in liberals.
> 
> It all comes from caring, and feeling from the bottom of each of our hearts that the policies coming out of compromise between the partiies is the way to accomplish great benefit for our country.
> 
> IMO, good heart doesn't have a political position.  We lose that everytime we objectify each other instead of connecting as fellow human beings and American citizens.
> 
> Just my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I do see nobility as human beings in many liberals I know personally--some I would trust with anything I own including my life.  I have become friends with a number of people who identify themselves as liberals in this strange internet world.  The difference between you and me is that I can separate the liberal from the liberalism he/she believes in.  It is not the liberal, but the liberalism he/she promotes that I object to.
> 
> I will allow anybody their beliefs and convictions in peace, no matter how wrong I think they are so long as they allow me my own beliefs and convictions in peace.  But when I think progressives/liberals are forcing harm on others I will speak up and prevent the harm if I can.  And when somebody tries to force damaging liberalism on me or attempts to punish me because I don't see things as they see them, that's when I will push back as hard as I am able.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, one way we differ is I don't believe in "liberalism".  There are policies that are considered liberal, that I support.  For instance, a woman's right to choose.  Reproductive rights for women.
> 
> I support Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, WIC and funding public education, public employees like fire fighters, law enforcement.
> 
> "Liberalism" is invented by the RW as a way to demonize other citizens.  I think that's wrong.
> 
> I don't broad brush Muslims or think it's wrong to allow Syrian refugees to emigrate to the US.  What it gets down to is you and I think differently.  As American citizens, we have that right.  Plenty of people I love happen to be conservatives.  We just don't emphasize our differences.  We love each other as people, as human beings.  I know I'd have their backs and I'm secure they'd have mine.
> 
> As for who you think is "punishing" you.  I find that pretty curious.  What is it you feel "punished" about?  And who do you think is "punishing" you?
> 
> How is it you think anyone is "forcing you" to accept another's convictions?  We are, each of us, free to disagree passionately with each other.  And free to love each other, find common ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe I said anybody was.  But if you don't believe in liberalism then there is no point in continuing this discussion.  I have no problem with what you believe or what you support until what you believe and what you support requires unwilling contribution or participation by me.  It is as simple as that.  So far I have not met the liberal who would not support the government forcing me to participate in and/or contribute to the liberal's agenda and most would applaud the government punishing me if I do not.
> 
> And that in a nutshell is why I hate liberalism.  But since you don't believe in it. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am more of a mixed bag and support some views from each side but I'm totally against others.    I could never side completely with either ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't consider the two political parties as "ideologies".
Click to expand...


Foxy and I were talking liberal versus conservative, which are two ideologies.


----------



## Dhara

ChrisL said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I do see nobility as human beings in many liberals I know personally--some I would trust with anything I own including my life.  I have become friends with a number of people who identify themselves as liberals in this strange internet world.  The difference between you and me is that I can separate the liberal from the liberalism he/she believes in.  It is not the liberal, but the liberalism he/she promotes that I object to.
> 
> I will allow anybody their beliefs and convictions in peace, no matter how wrong I think they are so long as they allow me my own beliefs and convictions in peace.  But when I think progressives/liberals are forcing harm on others I will speak up and prevent the harm if I can.  And when somebody tries to force damaging liberalism on me or attempts to punish me because I don't see things as they see them, that's when I will push back as hard as I am able.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, one way we differ is I don't believe in "liberalism".  There are policies that are considered liberal, that I support.  For instance, a woman's right to choose.  Reproductive rights for women.
> 
> I support Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, WIC and funding public education, public employees like fire fighters, law enforcement.
> 
> "Liberalism" is invented by the RW as a way to demonize other citizens.  I think that's wrong.
> 
> I don't broad brush Muslims or think it's wrong to allow Syrian refugees to emigrate to the US.  What it gets down to is you and I think differently.  As American citizens, we have that right.  Plenty of people I love happen to be conservatives.  We just don't emphasize our differences.  We love each other as people, as human beings.  I know I'd have their backs and I'm secure they'd have mine.
> 
> As for who you think is "punishing" you.  I find that pretty curious.  What is it you feel "punished" about?  And who do you think is "punishing" you?
> 
> How is it you think anyone is "forcing you" to accept another's convictions?  We are, each of us, free to disagree passionately with each other.  And free to love each other, find common ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe I said anybody was.  But if you don't believe in liberalism then there is no point in continuing this discussion.  I have no problem with what you believe or what you support until what you believe and what you support requires unwilling contribution or participation by me.  It is as simple as that.  So far I have not met the liberal who would not support the government forcing me to participate in and/or contribute to the liberal's agenda and most would applaud the government punishing me if I do not.
> 
> And that in a nutshell is why I hate liberalism.  But since you don't believe in it. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am more of a mixed bag and support some views from each side but I'm totally against others.    I could never side completely with either ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't consider the two political parties as "ideologies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxy and I were talking liberal versus conservative, which are two ideologies.
Click to expand...

I don't consider either of them ideologies.  People vote for leaders and policies, not ideologies.


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, one way we differ is I don't believe in "liberalism".  There are policies that are considered liberal, that I support.  For instance, a woman's right to choose.  Reproductive rights for women.
> 
> I support Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, WIC and funding public education, public employees like fire fighters, law enforcement.
> 
> "Liberalism" is invented by the RW as a way to demonize other citizens.  I think that's wrong.
> 
> I don't broad brush Muslims or think it's wrong to allow Syrian refugees to emigrate to the US.  What it gets down to is you and I think differently.  As American citizens, we have that right.  Plenty of people I love happen to be conservatives.  We just don't emphasize our differences.  We love each other as people, as human beings.  I know I'd have their backs and I'm secure they'd have mine.
> 
> As for who you think is "punishing" you.  I find that pretty curious.  What is it you feel "punished" about?  And who do you think is "punishing" you?
> 
> How is it you think anyone is "forcing you" to accept another's convictions?  We are, each of us, free to disagree passionately with each other.  And free to love each other, find common ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I said anybody was.  But if you don't believe in liberalism then there is no point in continuing this discussion.  I have no problem with what you believe or what you support until what you believe and what you support requires unwilling contribution or participation by me.  It is as simple as that.  So far I have not met the liberal who would not support the government forcing me to participate in and/or contribute to the liberal's agenda and most would applaud the government punishing me if I do not.
> 
> And that in a nutshell is why I hate liberalism.  But since you don't believe in it. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am more of a mixed bag and support some views from each side but I'm totally against others.    I could never side completely with either ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't consider the two political parties as "ideologies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxy and I were talking liberal versus conservative, which are two ideologies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't consider either of them ideologies.  People vote for leaders and policies, not ideologies.
Click to expand...


Well, I'm sorry, but that is what liberal and conservative are.  They are not parties.  They are ideologies or a set of beliefs.


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, one way we differ is I don't believe in "liberalism".  There are policies that are considered liberal, that I support.  For instance, a woman's right to choose.  Reproductive rights for women.
> 
> I support Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, WIC and funding public education, public employees like fire fighters, law enforcement.
> 
> "Liberalism" is invented by the RW as a way to demonize other citizens.  I think that's wrong.
> 
> I don't broad brush Muslims or think it's wrong to allow Syrian refugees to emigrate to the US.  What it gets down to is you and I think differently.  As American citizens, we have that right.  Plenty of people I love happen to be conservatives.  We just don't emphasize our differences.  We love each other as people, as human beings.  I know I'd have their backs and I'm secure they'd have mine.
> 
> As for who you think is "punishing" you.  I find that pretty curious.  What is it you feel "punished" about?  And who do you think is "punishing" you?
> 
> How is it you think anyone is "forcing you" to accept another's convictions?  We are, each of us, free to disagree passionately with each other.  And free to love each other, find common ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I said anybody was.  But if you don't believe in liberalism then there is no point in continuing this discussion.  I have no problem with what you believe or what you support until what you believe and what you support requires unwilling contribution or participation by me.  It is as simple as that.  So far I have not met the liberal who would not support the government forcing me to participate in and/or contribute to the liberal's agenda and most would applaud the government punishing me if I do not.
> 
> And that in a nutshell is why I hate liberalism.  But since you don't believe in it. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am more of a mixed bag and support some views from each side but I'm totally against others.    I could never side completely with either ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't consider the two political parties as "ideologies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxy and I were talking liberal versus conservative, which are two ideologies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't consider either of them ideologies.  People vote for leaders and policies, not ideologies.
Click to expand...


If I had been talking about the parties, I would have said Democrats/Republicans.


----------



## Dhara

ChrisL said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I said anybody was.  But if you don't believe in liberalism then there is no point in continuing this discussion.  I have no problem with what you believe or what you support until what you believe and what you support requires unwilling contribution or participation by me.  It is as simple as that.  So far I have not met the liberal who would not support the government forcing me to participate in and/or contribute to the liberal's agenda and most would applaud the government punishing me if I do not.
> 
> And that in a nutshell is why I hate liberalism.  But since you don't believe in it. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am more of a mixed bag and support some views from each side but I'm totally against others.    I could never side completely with either ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't consider the two political parties as "ideologies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxy and I were talking liberal versus conservative, which are two ideologies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't consider either of them ideologies.  People vote for leaders and policies, not ideologies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I had been talking about the parties, I would have said Democrats/Republicans.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about parties, not made up "ideologies".


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am more of a mixed bag and support some views from each side but I'm totally against others.    I could never side completely with either ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider the two political parties as "ideologies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxy and I were talking liberal versus conservative, which are two ideologies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't consider either of them ideologies.  People vote for leaders and policies, not ideologies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I had been talking about the parties, I would have said Democrats/Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about parties, not made up "ideologies".
Click to expand...


Foxy and I were talking about ideologies, liberal ideology and conservative ideology.  Liberalism and conservatism are belief systems or ideologies.  That is what we were talking about.  I wasn't talking about the parties.


----------



## Dhara

ChrisL said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider the two political parties as "ideologies".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxy and I were talking liberal versus conservative, which are two ideologies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't consider either of them ideologies.  People vote for leaders and policies, not ideologies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I had been talking about the parties, I would have said Democrats/Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about parties, not made up "ideologies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxy and I were talking about ideologies, liberal ideology and conservative ideology.  Liberalism and conservatism are belief systems or ideologies.  That is what we were talking about.  I wasn't talking about the parties.
Click to expand...

OK.  I see it differently, that's all.  I'd rather discuss the merits of this or that policy than concretize other people into "ideologies".


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxy and I were talking liberal versus conservative, which are two ideologies.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider either of them ideologies.  People vote for leaders and policies, not ideologies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I had been talking about the parties, I would have said Democrats/Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about parties, not made up "ideologies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxy and I were talking about ideologies, liberal ideology and conservative ideology.  Liberalism and conservatism are belief systems or ideologies.  That is what we were talking about.  I wasn't talking about the parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.  I see it differently, that's all.  I'd rather discuss the merits of this or that policy than concretize other people into "ideologies".
Click to expand...


Some people vote strictly along party or ideological lines.  For instance, some liberals would never even consider voting for a candidate who was anti abortion or anti gay marriage even if they agree with some of the candidate's other views.


----------



## Dhara

ChrisL said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider either of them ideologies.  People vote for leaders and policies, not ideologies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had been talking about the parties, I would have said Democrats/Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about parties, not made up "ideologies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxy and I were talking about ideologies, liberal ideology and conservative ideology.  Liberalism and conservatism are belief systems or ideologies.  That is what we were talking about.  I wasn't talking about the parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.  I see it differently, that's all.  I'd rather discuss the merits of this or that policy than concretize other people into "ideologies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people vote strictly along party or ideological lines.  For instance, some liberals would never even consider voting for a candidate who was anti abortion or anti gay marriage even if they agree with some of the candidate's other views.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that's the way that you want to parse the discussion.  Me, I'm tired of relating to categories  I'd rather connect with other people who want to discuss polices on their merit.

Bi-partisanship makes the country stronger.  When the parties find common ground and vote the people's interest, I like it.


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I had been talking about the parties, I would have said Democrats/Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about parties, not made up "ideologies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxy and I were talking about ideologies, liberal ideology and conservative ideology.  Liberalism and conservatism are belief systems or ideologies.  That is what we were talking about.  I wasn't talking about the parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.  I see it differently, that's all.  I'd rather discuss the merits of this or that policy than concretize other people into "ideologies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people vote strictly along party or ideological lines.  For instance, some liberals would never even consider voting for a candidate who was anti abortion or anti gay marriage even if they agree with some of the candidate's other views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I know that's the way that you want to parse the discussion.  Me, I'm tired of relating to categories  I'd rather connect with other people who want to discuss polices on their merit.
> 
> Bi-partisanship makes the country stronger.  When the parties find common ground and vote the people's interest, I like it.
Click to expand...


Okay, try this.  Can you tell me of any democrat candidates who are running on a conservative ideology?  What about any republican candidates who espouse liberal views?


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I had been talking about the parties, I would have said Democrats/Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about parties, not made up "ideologies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxy and I were talking about ideologies, liberal ideology and conservative ideology.  Liberalism and conservatism are belief systems or ideologies.  That is what we were talking about.  I wasn't talking about the parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.  I see it differently, that's all.  I'd rather discuss the merits of this or that policy than concretize other people into "ideologies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people vote strictly along party or ideological lines.  For instance, some liberals would never even consider voting for a candidate who was anti abortion or anti gay marriage even if they agree with some of the candidate's other views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I know that's the way that you want to parse the discussion.  Me, I'm tired of relating to categories  I'd rather connect with other people who want to discuss polices on their merit.
> 
> Bi-partisanship makes the country stronger.  When the parties find common ground and vote the people's interest, I like it.
Click to expand...


Uh, yeah.  That is what I was saying.  I said I don't buy into either of the main ideologies that currently infest our government and politicians.


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I had been talking about the parties, I would have said Democrats/Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about parties, not made up "ideologies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxy and I were talking about ideologies, liberal ideology and conservative ideology.  Liberalism and conservatism are belief systems or ideologies.  That is what we were talking about.  I wasn't talking about the parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.  I see it differently, that's all.  I'd rather discuss the merits of this or that policy than concretize other people into "ideologies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people vote strictly along party or ideological lines.  For instance, some liberals would never even consider voting for a candidate who was anti abortion or anti gay marriage even if they agree with some of the candidate's other views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I know that's the way that you want to parse the discussion.  Me, I'm tired of relating to categories  I'd rather connect with other people who want to discuss polices on their merit.
> 
> Bi-partisanship makes the country stronger.  When the parties find common ground and vote the people's interest, I like it.
Click to expand...


I am pro choice, anti death penalty, anti immigration and pro second amendment.  Can you tell me some candidates who share my views?


----------



## Dhara

ChrisL said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about parties, not made up "ideologies".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxy and I were talking about ideologies, liberal ideology and conservative ideology.  Liberalism and conservatism are belief systems or ideologies.  That is what we were talking about.  I wasn't talking about the parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.  I see it differently, that's all.  I'd rather discuss the merits of this or that policy than concretize other people into "ideologies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people vote strictly along party or ideological lines.  For instance, some liberals would never even consider voting for a candidate who was anti abortion or anti gay marriage even if they agree with some of the candidate's other views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I know that's the way that you want to parse the discussion.  Me, I'm tired of relating to categories  I'd rather connect with other people who want to discuss polices on their merit.
> 
> Bi-partisanship makes the country stronger.  When the parties find common ground and vote the people's interest, I like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, try this.  Can you tell me of any democrat candidates who are running on a conservative ideology?  What about any republican candidates who espouse liberal views?
Click to expand...

Once again, I don't relate to the idea of "liberalism" or "conservatism".  If you had seen the first Democratic debate there was a range of Democrats, from Bernie Sanders to Jim Webb.  Webb could cross party lines quite easily


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxy and I were talking about ideologies, liberal ideology and conservative ideology.  Liberalism and conservatism are belief systems or ideologies.  That is what we were talking about.  I wasn't talking about the parties.
> 
> 
> 
> OK.  I see it differently, that's all.  I'd rather discuss the merits of this or that policy than concretize other people into "ideologies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people vote strictly along party or ideological lines.  For instance, some liberals would never even consider voting for a candidate who was anti abortion or anti gay marriage even if they agree with some of the candidate's other views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I know that's the way that you want to parse the discussion.  Me, I'm tired of relating to categories  I'd rather connect with other people who want to discuss polices on their merit.
> 
> Bi-partisanship makes the country stronger.  When the parties find common ground and vote the people's interest, I like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, try this.  Can you tell me of any democrat candidates who are running on a conservative ideology?  What about any republican candidates who espouse liberal views?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, I don't relate to the idea of "liberalism" or "conservatism".  If you had seen the first Democratic debate there was a range of Democrats, from Bernie Sanders to Jim Webb.  Webb could cross party lines quite easily
Click to expand...


And what is his platform?  Where does he stand on the social issues?  What views would you consider more conservative?


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxy and I were talking about ideologies, liberal ideology and conservative ideology.  Liberalism and conservatism are belief systems or ideologies.  That is what we were talking about.  I wasn't talking about the parties.
> 
> 
> 
> OK.  I see it differently, that's all.  I'd rather discuss the merits of this or that policy than concretize other people into "ideologies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people vote strictly along party or ideological lines.  For instance, some liberals would never even consider voting for a candidate who was anti abortion or anti gay marriage even if they agree with some of the candidate's other views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I know that's the way that you want to parse the discussion.  Me, I'm tired of relating to categories  I'd rather connect with other people who want to discuss polices on their merit.
> 
> Bi-partisanship makes the country stronger.  When the parties find common ground and vote the people's interest, I like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, try this.  Can you tell me of any democrat candidates who are running on a conservative ideology?  What about any republican candidates who espouse liberal views?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, I don't relate to the idea of "liberalism" or "conservatism".  If you had seen the first Democratic debate there was a range of Democrats, from Bernie Sanders to Jim Webb.  Webb could cross party lines quite easily
Click to expand...


Well, I'm sorry and I don't know what you are arguing about.  These ideologies are well known and many, many people who vote do in fact vote based upon these ideological viewpoints.  

Liberalism and conservatism are two political and socioeconomic policies is all.


----------



## Dhara

What does Jim Webb believe? Where the candidate stands on 10 issues | PBS NewsHour


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> What does Jim Webb believe? Where the candidate stands on 10 issues | PBS NewsHour



Interesting candidate.  I only disagree with him on immigration.  I think we should make it much more difficult to become a US citizen.


----------



## Dhara

ChrisL said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Jim Webb believe? Where the candidate stands on 10 issues | PBS NewsHour
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting candidate.  I only disagree with him on immigration.  I think we should make it much more difficult to become a US citizen.
Click to expand...

I'd like you to consider how you'd have felt if your relatives were deliberately barred from entering the US because of their ethnicity or religion..


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> What does Jim Webb believe? Where the candidate stands on 10 issues | PBS NewsHour



He is an interesting candidate, but he is not the DNC "sweetheart" now is he?    Who is the DNC sweetheart?  The one who follows along with the main political ideology of the democrat party, which is liberalism.  That would be Hilary Clinton.  

The same goes for the republicans.  They don't want to throw their support behind a pro choice candidate.  They want one who is going to follow them.  The two party system that has been monopolizing our political system for years now is what is going to do us in.


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Jim Webb believe? Where the candidate stands on 10 issues | PBS NewsHour
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting candidate.  I only disagree with him on immigration.  I think we should make it much more difficult to become a US citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd like you to consider how you'd have felt if your relatives were deliberately barred from entering the US.
Click to expand...


This is not an emotional issue.  It is a logistical issue.  We don't have enough resources to care for everyone.  Already, our system is becoming unbalanced with approximately 35% of US citizens collecting some form of social service supports.


----------



## Dhara

I don't agree with you.  After watching the last Democratic debate, I felt as though I would have proudly voted for any of them, even though there were differences.


----------



## Dhara

ChrisL said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Jim Webb believe? Where the candidate stands on 10 issues | PBS NewsHour
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting candidate.  I only disagree with him on immigration.  I think we should make it much more difficult to become a US citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd like you to consider how you'd have felt if your relatives were deliberately barred from entering the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not an emotional issue.  It is a logistical issue.  We don't have enough resources to care for everyone.  Already, our system is becoming unbalanced with approximately 35% of US citizens collecting some form of social service supports.
Click to expand...

I merely asked you to consider how you would have felt if it were YOUR relatives.

Consider how Canada treated the Syrian refugees.


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Jim Webb believe? Where the candidate stands on 10 issues | PBS NewsHour
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting candidate.  I only disagree with him on immigration.  I think we should make it much more difficult to become a US citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd like you to consider how you'd have felt if your relatives were deliberately barred from entering the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not an emotional issue.  It is a logistical issue.  We don't have enough resources to care for everyone.  Already, our system is becoming unbalanced with approximately 35% of US citizens collecting some form of social service supports.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I merely asked you to consider how you would have felt if it were YOUR relatives.
> 
> Consider how Canada treated the Syrian refugees.
Click to expand...


That is irrelevant to me.


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Jim Webb believe? Where the candidate stands on 10 issues | PBS NewsHour
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting candidate.  I only disagree with him on immigration.  I think we should make it much more difficult to become a US citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd like you to consider how you'd have felt if your relatives were deliberately barred from entering the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not an emotional issue.  It is a logistical issue.  We don't have enough resources to care for everyone.  Already, our system is becoming unbalanced with approximately 35% of US citizens collecting some form of social service supports.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I merely asked you to consider how you would have felt if it were YOUR relatives.
> 
> Consider how Canada treated the Syrian refugees.
Click to expand...


As a citizen and a taxpayer, I say no more.


----------



## Dhara

ChrisL said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Jim Webb believe? Where the candidate stands on 10 issues | PBS NewsHour
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting candidate.  I only disagree with him on immigration.  I think we should make it much more difficult to become a US citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd like you to consider how you'd have felt if your relatives were deliberately barred from entering the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not an emotional issue.  It is a logistical issue.  We don't have enough resources to care for everyone.  Already, our system is becoming unbalanced with approximately 35% of US citizens collecting some form of social service supports.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I merely asked you to consider how you would have felt if it were YOUR relatives.
> 
> Consider how Canada treated the Syrian refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is irrelevant to me.
Click to expand...

It's not irrelevant to me.  Study the history of immigraton law.


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting candidate.  I only disagree with him on immigration.  I think we should make it much more difficult to become a US citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like you to consider how you'd have felt if your relatives were deliberately barred from entering the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not an emotional issue.  It is a logistical issue.  We don't have enough resources to care for everyone.  Already, our system is becoming unbalanced with approximately 35% of US citizens collecting some form of social service supports.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I merely asked you to consider how you would have felt if it were YOUR relatives.
> 
> Consider how Canada treated the Syrian refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is irrelevant to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not irrelevant to me.  Study the history of immigraton law.
Click to expand...


Quote the part of the constitution where it states America has to accept any refugees or immigrants.


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting candidate.  I only disagree with him on immigration.  I think we should make it much more difficult to become a US citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like you to consider how you'd have felt if your relatives were deliberately barred from entering the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not an emotional issue.  It is a logistical issue.  We don't have enough resources to care for everyone.  Already, our system is becoming unbalanced with approximately 35% of US citizens collecting some form of social service supports.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I merely asked you to consider how you would have felt if it were YOUR relatives.
> 
> Consider how Canada treated the Syrian refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is irrelevant to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not irrelevant to me.  Study the history of immigraton law.
Click to expand...


I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants.  I would like a list from you as to why we should.  I like to measure the pros and cons.


----------



## Dhara

ChrisL said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like you to consider how you'd have felt if your relatives were deliberately barred from entering the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not an emotional issue.  It is a logistical issue.  We don't have enough resources to care for everyone.  Already, our system is becoming unbalanced with approximately 35% of US citizens collecting some form of social service supports.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I merely asked you to consider how you would have felt if it were YOUR relatives.
> 
> Consider how Canada treated the Syrian refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is irrelevant to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not irrelevant to me.  Study the history of immigraton law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants.  I would like a list from you as to why we should.  I like to measure the pros and cons.
Click to expand...

Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. 

We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it. 
This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees

We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.


----------



## thanatos144

Dhara said:


> I don't agree with you.  After watching the last Democratic debate, I felt as though I would have proudly voted for any of them, even though there were differences.


Thanks for telling us you are a selfish retard . 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not an emotional issue.  It is a logistical issue.  We don't have enough resources to care for everyone.  Already, our system is becoming unbalanced with approximately 35% of US citizens collecting some form of social service supports.
> 
> 
> 
> I merely asked you to consider how you would have felt if it were YOUR relatives.
> 
> Consider how Canada treated the Syrian refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is irrelevant to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not irrelevant to me.  Study the history of immigraton law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants.  I would like a list from you as to why we should.  I like to measure the pros and cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
> This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees
> 
> We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.
Click to expand...


I don't care who you want to blame.  I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever.  I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros.  Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.


----------



## Dhara

ChrisL said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I merely asked you to consider how you would have felt if it were YOUR relatives.
> 
> Consider how Canada treated the Syrian refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is irrelevant to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not irrelevant to me.  Study the history of immigraton law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants.  I would like a list from you as to why we should.  I like to measure the pros and cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
> This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees
> 
> We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who you want to blame.  I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever.  I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros.  Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.
Click to expand...

It's not my job to convince you of anything.  I don't care if you keep your position or not.  You're entitled to it.  You asked me what reasons I have for wanting to admit refugees into our country as immigrants, and I gave you  a major one.

The US once accepted 800,000 Vietnamese refugees.  We have accepted only 1500 Syrians.


----------



## Dhara

As I see images of the children cowering under rubble, 
my heart bleeds for them more than the media, or maybe not more;
just the fact that massacred children won't get the coverage

How will we end this bloodshed if the majority does not know it exists? If we are not willing to witness the role we all play?
I see their blood and blown off limbs but don't hear the gun shots, but I wish the bombs were not a sound for children.

I'm not claiming to know about politics or every world event that isn't covered by the media - I don't. I can only imagine the many who pay the consequence for a minority.

There are a hundred and ninety six countries in the world, it seems all I hear about is one; occupied by 22.85 million people living in dirt; I too would want to escape the wasteland. 

An article states their are 187 Syrian refugees based in the UK, survivors of torture, violence - mothers and children requiring medical care. How lucky we are to live in this first world not yet torn apart, how can we judge when I have never witnessed an air strike on this street. 

I hope one day we welcome you with open arms, that you find something to cling onto other than your parents dead body.

I am sorry that the world makes this an even bigger fight to survive for you.

 Shannice Thompson


----------



## Desperado

Because they will not mind their own business.  They will give you their opinion whether you ask for it or not.
More often than not, their mind are closed to any discussion.  To them it is their way or the highway.


----------



## PK1

PK1 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my perusals of the forums, I've  never seen so much pathological hatred towards Conservatives. But then, American partisan divisions have reached an all time high. What happened to the "heal the world" mantra espoused by Barack Obama?
> 
> Where are all the old style Democrats who  seem to have disappeared into the ether? Such as Kennedy, who could become a hawk when needed. Or Clinton, who was prepared to move to the centre, when expedient.
> 
> Present day liberals bear no relation to Democrats, IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I would say present day conservatives bear no relation to previous generation Republicans.
> .
Click to expand...


"*Liberalism*"
As mentioned earlier (post 2950), the USA was founded on this ideology.
Can any *conservative* justify their contrarian position without exposing their hypocrisy, greed, and intolerance?
.


----------



## PK1

ChrisL said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I merely asked you to consider how you would have felt if it were YOUR relatives.
> 
> Consider how Canada treated the Syrian refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is irrelevant to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not irrelevant to me.  Study the history of immigraton law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants.  I would like a list from you as to why we should.  I like to measure the pros and cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
> This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees
> 
> We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who you want to blame.  I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever.  I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros.  Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.
Click to expand...

---
_"I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever."_

That sounds really *COLD.*
:-(

Not very Christian-like, and i'm not even religious. Just have *empathy*.
.


----------



## Foxfyre

PK1 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is irrelevant to me.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not irrelevant to me.  Study the history of immigraton law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants.  I would like a list from you as to why we should.  I like to measure the pros and cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
> This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees
> 
> We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who you want to blame.  I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever.  I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros.  Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> _"I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever."_
> 
> That sounds really *COLD.*
> :-(
> 
> Not very Christian-like, and i'm not even religious. Just have *empathy*.
> .
Click to expand...


Chris didn't say she didn't have empathy.  That is a separate thing from obligation.  I do believe our first obligation is to not put innocent American citizens at higher risk and if that means we can't take in Syrian refugees because we have no way to vet them, then so be it.  I have no objection to providing them shelter, food, medical, etc in refugee camps or whatever is necessary to help the helpless there..  But we sure don't have to let them become pawns and cover for terrorists to have much greater access to our own people here.


----------



## Dhara

It is appropriate to let in far more Syrian refugees than we have.That's my opinion.

The inscription on the Statue of Liberty reads:

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”


----------



## thanatos144

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is irrelevant to me.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not irrelevant to me.  Study the history of immigraton law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants.  I would like a list from you as to why we should.  I like to measure the pros and cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
> This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees
> 
> We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who you want to blame.  I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever.  I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros.  Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my job to convince you of anything.  I don't care if you keep your position or not.  You're entitled to it.  You asked me what reasons I have for wanting to admit refugees into our country as immigrants, and I gave you  a major one.
> 
> The US once accepted 800,000 Vietnamese refugees.  We have accepted only 1500 Syrians.
Click to expand...





Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

PK1 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my perusals of the forums, I've  never seen so much pathological hatred towards Conservatives. But then, American partisan divisions have reached an all time high. What happened to the "heal the world" mantra espoused by Barack Obama?
> 
> Where are all the old style Democrats who  seem to have disappeared into the ether? Such as Kennedy, who could become a hawk when needed. Or Clinton, who was prepared to move to the centre, when expedient.
> 
> Present day liberals bear no relation to Democrats, IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I would say present day conservatives bear no relation to previous generation Republicans.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*Liberalism*"
> As mentioned earlier (post 2950), the USA was founded on this ideology.
> Can any *conservative* justify their contrarian position without exposing their hypocrisy, greed, and intolerance?
> .
Click to expand...

It was democrats that were the greedy racist not conservatives. .. do learn some history 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> Of course you don't.  You're a liberal.



Don't you mean "a pinko liberal"


----------



## PK1

thanatos144 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my perusals of the forums, I've  never seen so much pathological hatred towards Conservatives. But then, American partisan divisions have reached an all time high. What happened to the "heal the world" mantra espoused by Barack Obama?
> 
> Where are all the old style Democrats who  seem to have disappeared into the ether? Such as Kennedy, who could become a hawk when needed. Or Clinton, who was prepared to move to the centre, when expedient.
> 
> Present day liberals bear no relation to Democrats, IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I would say present day conservatives bear no relation to previous generation Republicans.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*Liberalism*"
> As mentioned earlier (post 2950), the USA was founded on this ideology.
> Can any *conservative* justify their contrarian position without exposing their hypocrisy, greed, and intolerance?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was democrats that were the greedy racist not conservatives. .. do learn some history
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

---
I'm not a democrat; i'm a prosocial Libertarian. Besides, your reference to racist democrats were the Southerners who subsequently became republicans after the civil rights movement in the 60's. You're the one in need of a history lesson, as well as political science.

If you are a conservative, you have not justified a contrarian position to Liberalism.
.


----------



## KissMy

thanatos144 said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not irrelevant to me.  Study the history of immigraton law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants.  I would like a list from you as to why we should.  I like to measure the pros and cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
> This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees
> 
> We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who you want to blame.  I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever.  I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros.  Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my job to convince you of anything.  I don't care if you keep your position or not.  You're entitled to it.  You asked me what reasons I have for wanting to admit refugees into our country as immigrants, and I gave you  a major one.
> 
> The US once accepted 800,000 Vietnamese refugees.  We have accepted only 1500 Syrians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 57523
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Straw-man Retard!


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't.  You're a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you mean "a pinko liberal"
Click to expand...


"pinko" in front of "liberal" is redundant.


----------



## OldLady

Saigon said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to get into detail because then I would be accused of being hateful toward cons. But while liberals view the world with shades of gray, conservatives view the world as black vs white,us vs them,good vs evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The weird thing is - there seems to be some truth in that.
> 
> I just don't see a lot of more left wing posters going on about "typical conservative mindset" or claiming "conservatives are so stupid".
> 
> I'm glad we don't see that, but still...
Click to expand...

You don't read very many threads, here, do you?


----------



## thanatos144

KissMy said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants.  I would like a list from you as to why we should.  I like to measure the pros and cons.
> 
> 
> 
> Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
> This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees
> 
> We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who you want to blame.  I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever.  I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros.  Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my job to convince you of anything.  I don't care if you keep your position or not.  You're entitled to it.  You asked me what reasons I have for wanting to admit refugees into our country as immigrants, and I gave you  a major one.
> 
> The US once accepted 800,000 Vietnamese refugees.  We have accepted only 1500 Syrians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 57523
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Straw-man Retard!
Click to expand...

I am sure you wish it was. 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

PK1 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my perusals of the forums, I've  never seen so much pathological hatred towards Conservatives. But then, American partisan divisions have reached an all time high. What happened to the "heal the world" mantra espoused by Barack Obama?
> 
> Where are all the old style Democrats who  seem to have disappeared into the ether? Such as Kennedy, who could become a hawk when needed. Or Clinton, who was prepared to move to the centre, when expedient.
> 
> Present day liberals bear no relation to Democrats, IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I would say present day conservatives bear no relation to previous generation Republicans.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*Liberalism*"
> As mentioned earlier (post 2950), the USA was founded on this ideology.
> Can any *conservative* justify their contrarian position without exposing their hypocrisy, greed, and intolerance?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was democrats that were the greedy racist not conservatives. .. do learn some history
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I'm not a democrat; i'm a prosocial Libertarian. Besides, your reference to racist democrats were the Southerners who subsequently became republicans after the civil rights movement in the 60's. You're the one in need of a history lesson, as well as political science.
> 
> If you are a conservative, you have not justified a contrarian position to Liberalism.
> .
Click to expand...

So you are a lying democrat.  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Foxfyre

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is irrelevant to me.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not irrelevant to me.  Study the history of immigraton law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants.  I would like a list from you as to why we should.  I like to measure the pros and cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
> This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees
> 
> We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who you want to blame.  I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever.  I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros.  Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my job to convince you of anything.  I don't care if you keep your position or not.  You're entitled to it.  You asked me what reasons I have for wanting to admit refugees into our country as immigrants, and I gave you  a major one.
> 
> The US once accepted 800,000 Vietnamese refugees.  We have accepted only 1500 Syrians.
Click to expand...


Were the South Vietnamese blowing holes in our ships or bombing or burning down our embassies and killing as many personnel as they could?  Were there terrorists among them determined to explode bombs in crowds of U.S. citizens or send suicide bombers or gunners into U.S. businesses?  Were the South Vietnamese trying to get a dirty bomb into the USA or were hijacking airplane to fly into buildings killing thousands of innocent Americans?

I have personally helped settle both Cuban and Vietnamese refugees over the years.  And in every case those people wanted to adopt the American way of life, fit in, be Americans, and be a positive influence here.  Destroying 'infidels' was the furthest thing from their minds.

Both the State Department and Defense Department spokespersons have admitted we have no way to separate out the terrorists from peaceful people among the Syrian refugees.  And that there are thousands of terrorists who would take every advantage given them to get into this country, including posing as peaceful Syrian refugees.  You don't see the government proposing that these people be taken in near the White House or placed in neighborhoods where government officials and their families live do you?   How many are you willing to accept next door to you when you know it is possible somebody who wants to kill you would likely be among them?

By all means offer humanitarian aid to those who are suffering.  Our nation has always done that.  But how stupid do we have to be in order to be considered humane?  And what do you tell the survivors to justify a policy when it is their loved ones being maimed and murdered?

And while most Muslims would almost surely choose peace over mayhem, there are many thousands of Muslims who will commit mayhem and murder on a large scale here the first opportunity they have to do that.


----------



## PK1

thanatos144 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my perusals of the forums, I've  never seen so much pathological hatred towards Conservatives. But then, American partisan divisions have reached an all time high. What happened to the "heal the world" mantra espoused by Barack Obama?
> 
> Where are all the old style Democrats who  seem to have disappeared into the ether? Such as Kennedy, who could become a hawk when needed. Or Clinton, who was prepared to move to the centre, when expedient.
> 
> Present day liberals bear no relation to Democrats, IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I would say present day conservatives bear no relation to previous generation Republicans.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*Liberalism*"
> As mentioned earlier (post 2950), the USA was founded on this ideology.
> Can any *conservative* justify their contrarian position without exposing their hypocrisy, greed, and intolerance?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was democrats that were the greedy racist not conservatives. .. do learn some history
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I'm not a democrat; i'm a prosocial Libertarian. Besides, your reference to racist democrats were the Southerners who subsequently became republicans after the civil rights movement in the 60's. You're the one in need of a history lesson, as well as political science.
> 
> If you are a conservative, you have not justified a contrarian position to Liberalism.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a lying democrat.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

---
Were you demonstrating your stupidity or avoiding my challenge?

*If you are a conservative, you have not justified a contrarian position to Liberalism.*

Do you need a reminder for what Liberalism is?
.


----------



## thanatos144

PK1 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I would say present day conservatives bear no relation to previous generation Republicans.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*Liberalism*"
> As mentioned earlier (post 2950), the USA was founded on this ideology.
> Can any *conservative* justify their contrarian position without exposing their hypocrisy, greed, and intolerance?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was democrats that were the greedy racist not conservatives. .. do learn some history
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I'm not a democrat; i'm a prosocial Libertarian. Besides, your reference to racist democrats were the Southerners who subsequently became republicans after the civil rights movement in the 60's. You're the one in need of a history lesson, as well as political science.
> 
> If you are a conservative, you have not justified a contrarian position to Liberalism.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a lying democrat.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Were you demonstrating your stupidity or avoiding my challenge?
> 
> *If you are a conservative, you have not justified a contrarian position to Liberalism.*
> 
> Do you need a reminder for what Liberalism is?
> .
Click to expand...

It is not my job to justify your bent leanings just fight against it.


----------



## Samson

thanatos144 said:


> It is not my job to justify your bent leanings just fight against it.



No, it is your job to consistently amuse us with your incredibly inane posting.


----------



## thanatos144

Samson said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not my job to justify your bent leanings just fight against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is your job to consistently amuse us with your incredibly inane posting.
Click to expand...

So it is true the mentally deficient  is almost always happy.


----------



## Samson

thanatos144 said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not my job to justify your bent leanings just fight against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is your job to consistently amuse us with your incredibly inane posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is true the mentally deficient  is almost always happy.
Click to expand...


I'll take that as your expert opinion, and appreciate that you even attempted to put any thought into a reply.


----------



## Dhara

Foxfyre said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not irrelevant to me.  Study the history of immigraton law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants.  I would like a list from you as to why we should.  I like to measure the pros and cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
> This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees
> 
> We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who you want to blame.  I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever.  I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros.  Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my job to convince you of anything.  I don't care if you keep your position or not.  You're entitled to it.  You asked me what reasons I have for wanting to admit refugees into our country as immigrants, and I gave you  a major one.
> 
> The US once accepted 800,000 Vietnamese refugees.  We have accepted only 1500 Syrians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were the South Vietnamese blowing holes in our ships or bombing or burning down our embassies and killing as many personnel as they could?  Were there terrorists among them determined to explode bombs in crowds of U.S. citizens or send suicide bombers or gunners into U.S. businesses?  Were the South Vietnamese trying to get a dirty bomb into the USA or were hijacking airplane to fly into buildings killing thousands of innocent Americans?
> 
> I have personally helped settle both Cuban and Vietnamese refugees over the years.  And in every case those people wanted to adopt the American way of life, fit in, be Americans, and be a positive influence here.  Destroying 'infidels' was the furthest thing from their minds.
> 
> Both the State Department and Defense Department spokespersons have admitted we have no way to separate out the terrorists from peaceful people among the Syrian refugees.  And that there are thousands of terrorists who would take every advantage given them to get into this country, including posing as peaceful Syrian refugees.  You don't see the government proposing that these people be taken in near the White House or placed in neighborhoods where government officials and their families live do you?   How many are you willing to accept next door to you when you know it is possible somebody who wants to kill you would likely be among them?
> 
> By all means offer humanitarian aid to those who are suffering.  Our nation has always done that.  But how stupid do we have to be in order to be considered humane?  And what do you tell the survivors to justify a policy when it is their loved ones being maimed and murdered?
> 
> And while most Muslims would almost surely choose peace over mayhem, there are many thousands of Muslims who will commit mayhem and murder on a large scale here the first opportunity they have to do that.
Click to expand...

Muslims in America want the same things that Cuban and Vietnamese refugees want.  I think it's a mistake to stereotype Syrians, (Christians among them) as jihadis.  Just my opinon.  You're entitled to yours, which differs from mine.  I don't appreciate you characterizing people who see things differently from you as "stupid".  Plenty of people thought America should not have interned Japanese "Americans during WWII.  That was not an instance of America at our best, IMO.

We all have loved ones and want the best for our loved ones.  I don't want my kids to grow up to be prejudiced against Muslims, because some misinterpret Islam as to suppport bad actions.  
Trump completely is playing into ISIL's hands.  He's a good recruiter for them.  I want people in that part of the world to understand that America is composed of many types of people and we still are united as one America.  That is what makes our country great.


----------



## thanatos144

Samson said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not my job to justify your bent leanings just fight against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is your job to consistently amuse us with your incredibly inane posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is true the mentally deficient  is almost always happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that as your expert opinion, and appreciate that you even attempted to put any thought into a reply.
Click to expand...

Tell me what do windows taste like?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## PK1

thanatos144 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*Liberalism*"
> As mentioned earlier (post 2950), the USA was founded on this ideology.
> Can any *conservative* justify their contrarian position without exposing their hypocrisy, greed, and intolerance?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> It was democrats that were the greedy racist not conservatives. .. do learn some history
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I'm not a democrat; i'm a prosocial Libertarian. Besides, your reference to racist democrats were the Southerners who subsequently became republicans after the civil rights movement in the 60's. You're the one in need of a history lesson, as well as political science.
> 
> If you are a conservative, you have not justified a contrarian position to Liberalism.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a lying democrat.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Were you demonstrating your stupidity or avoiding my challenge?
> 
> *If you are a conservative, you have not justified a contrarian position to Liberalism.*
> 
> Do you need a reminder for what Liberalism is?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not my job to justify your bent leanings just fight against it.
Click to expand...

---
I did not ask you to justify Liberalism; it's self evident in the founding of USA.

You reflect a stupid troll. Nothing more to exchange with you.
.


----------



## thanatos144

PK1 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was democrats that were the greedy racist not conservatives. .. do learn some history
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I'm not a democrat; i'm a prosocial Libertarian. Besides, your reference to racist democrats were the Southerners who subsequently became republicans after the civil rights movement in the 60's. You're the one in need of a history lesson, as well as political science.
> 
> If you are a conservative, you have not justified a contrarian position to Liberalism.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a lying democrat.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Were you demonstrating your stupidity or avoiding my challenge?
> 
> *If you are a conservative, you have not justified a contrarian position to Liberalism.*
> 
> Do you need a reminder for what Liberalism is?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not my job to justify your bent leanings just fight against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I did not ask you to justify Liberalism; it's self evident in the founding of USA.
> 
> You reflect a stupid troll. Nothing more to exchange with you.
> .
Click to expand...

Son your brand of socialist evil has nothing to do with the founding of this country.  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

The founders would be repulsed that we slaughter our babies by the millions.  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is irrelevant to me.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not irrelevant to me.  Study the history of immigraton law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants.  I would like a list from you as to why we should.  I like to measure the pros and cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
> This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees
> 
> We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who you want to blame.  I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever.  I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros.  Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my job to convince you of anything.  I don't care if you keep your position or not.  You're entitled to it.  You asked me what reasons I have for wanting to admit refugees into our country as immigrants, and I gave you  a major one.
> 
> The US once accepted 800,000 Vietnamese refugees.  We have accepted only 1500 Syrians.
Click to expand...


Well then, I stand with my original statement.  This does nothing to help us and only hurts us.


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> It is appropriate to let in far more Syrian refugees than we have.That's my opinion.
> 
> The inscription on the Statue of Liberty reads:
> 
> “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”



This is just more emotional gibberish.  Means nothing.


----------



## ChrisL

PK1 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is irrelevant to me.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not irrelevant to me.  Study the history of immigraton law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants.  I would like a list from you as to why we should.  I like to measure the pros and cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
> This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees
> 
> We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who you want to blame.  I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever.  I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros.  Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> _"I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever."_
> 
> That sounds really *COLD.*
> :-(
> 
> Not very Christian-like, and i'm not even religious. Just have *empathy*.
> .
Click to expand...


What makes you think I'm a Christian?  Sorry, I feel for the people here in this country who are struggling.  I feel sorry for the children in the ME who are innocent, that's about the extent of my empathy for these people.


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> As I see images of the children cowering under rubble,
> my heart bleeds for them more than the media, or maybe not more;
> just the fact that massacred children won't get the coverage
> 
> How will we end this bloodshed if the majority does not know it exists? If we are not willing to witness the role we all play?
> I see their blood and blown off limbs but don't hear the gun shots, but I wish the bombs were not a sound for children.
> 
> I'm not claiming to know about politics or every world event that isn't covered by the media - I don't. I can only imagine the many who pay the consequence for a minority.
> 
> There are a hundred and ninety six countries in the world, it seems all I hear about is one; occupied by 22.85 million people living in dirt; I too would want to escape the wasteland.
> 
> An article states their are 187 Syrian refugees based in the UK, survivors of torture, violence - mothers and children requiring medical care. How lucky we are to live in this first world not yet torn apart, how can we judge when I have never witnessed an air strike on this street.
> 
> I hope one day we welcome you with open arms, that you find something to cling onto other than your parents dead body.
> 
> I am sorry that the world makes this an even bigger fight to survive for you.
> 
> Shannice Thompson



What does this have to do with the United States?  Can't take in every stray dog you see either.  That's life.  Get used to it.


----------



## ChrisL

Desperado said:


> Because they will not mind their own business.  They will give you their opinion whether you ask for it or not.
> More often than not, their mind are closed to any discussion.  To them it is their way or the highway.



Who is "them" and "they?"  Care to elaborate?


----------



## ChrisL

PK1 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my perusals of the forums, I've  never seen so much pathological hatred towards Conservatives. But then, American partisan divisions have reached an all time high. What happened to the "heal the world" mantra espoused by Barack Obama?
> 
> Where are all the old style Democrats who  seem to have disappeared into the ether? Such as Kennedy, who could become a hawk when needed. Or Clinton, who was prepared to move to the centre, when expedient.
> 
> Present day liberals bear no relation to Democrats, IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I would say present day conservatives bear no relation to previous generation Republicans.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*Liberalism*"
> As mentioned earlier (post 2950), the USA was founded on this ideology.
> Can any *conservative* justify their contrarian position without exposing their hypocrisy, greed, and intolerance?
> .
Click to expand...




PK1 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is irrelevant to me.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not irrelevant to me.  Study the history of immigraton law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants.  I would like a list from you as to why we should.  I like to measure the pros and cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
> This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees
> 
> We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who you want to blame.  I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever.  I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros.  Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> _"I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever."_
> 
> That sounds really *COLD.*
> :-(
> 
> Not very Christian-like, and i'm not even religious. Just have *empathy*.
> .
Click to expand...


This is part of our problem.  Bleeding hearts.  You don't make policy based on what "feels good."  You make policy based on what is BEST for your country.


----------



## PK1

ChrisL said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my perusals of the forums, I've  never seen so much pathological hatred towards Conservatives. But then, American partisan divisions have reached an all time high. What happened to the "heal the world" mantra espoused by Barack Obama?
> 
> Where are all the old style Democrats who  seem to have disappeared into the ether? Such as Kennedy, who could become a hawk when needed. Or Clinton, who was prepared to move to the centre, when expedient.
> 
> Present day liberals bear no relation to Democrats, IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I would say present day conservatives bear no relation to previous generation Republicans.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*Liberalism*"
> As mentioned earlier (post 2950), the USA was founded on this ideology.
> Can any *conservative* justify their contrarian position without exposing their hypocrisy, greed, and intolerance?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not irrelevant to me.  Study the history of immigraton law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants.  I would like a list from you as to why we should.  I like to measure the pros and cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
> This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees
> 
> We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who you want to blame.  I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever.  I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros.  Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> _"I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever."_
> 
> That sounds really *COLD.*
> :-(
> 
> Not very Christian-like, and i'm not even religious. Just have *empathy*.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is part of our problem.  Bleeding hearts.  You don't make policy based on what "feels good."  You make policy based on what is BEST for your country.
Click to expand...

---
What's best for a country, and Earth collectively, is what "feels good" overall ... among ALL participants in this GLOBAL economy of ours nowadays.
.


----------



## Foxfyre

PK1 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my perusals of the forums, I've  never seen so much pathological hatred towards Conservatives. But then, American partisan divisions have reached an all time high. What happened to the "heal the world" mantra espoused by Barack Obama?
> 
> Where are all the old style Democrats who  seem to have disappeared into the ether? Such as Kennedy, who could become a hawk when needed. Or Clinton, who was prepared to move to the centre, when expedient.
> 
> Present day liberals bear no relation to Democrats, IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I would say present day conservatives bear no relation to previous generation Republicans.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*Liberalism*"
> As mentioned earlier (post 2950), the USA was founded on this ideology.
> Can any *conservative* justify their contrarian position without exposing their hypocrisy, greed, and intolerance?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants.  I would like a list from you as to why we should.  I like to measure the pros and cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
> This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees
> 
> We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who you want to blame.  I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever.  I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros.  Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> _"I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever."_
> 
> That sounds really *COLD.*
> :-(
> 
> Not very Christian-like, and i'm not even religious. Just have *empathy*.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is part of our problem.  Bleeding hearts.  You don't make policy based on what "feels good."  You make policy based on what is BEST for your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> What's best for a country, and Earth collectively, is what "feels good" overall ... among ALL participants in this GLOBAL economy of ours nowadays.
> .
Click to expand...


Oh sure.  What "feels good" has created an unhealthy generation hooked on processed foods.  What "feels good" has created millions of obsessive gamblers, alcoholics, and other drug addicts.  What "feels good" has eroded people's values, encouraged risky behaviors, and created a generation of people who feel no shame in not providing for themselves or their families and looking to others to do that.  It is what "feels good" that has prompted people to use coercion, terrorism, and inappropriate actions to force their values and sense of morality on everybody else to their own advantage.  And that certainly doesn't include everything that could be on that list.

It depends on WHAT feels good that determines what is best for a country and Earth collectively.  And here the modern American conservative is worlds apart from the modern American liberal.


----------



## Samson

thanatos144 said:


> Tell me what do windows taste like?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk




You're going to hurt yourself: if possible, try not to think so hard before posting.


----------



## ChrisL

PK1 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my perusals of the forums, I've  never seen so much pathological hatred towards Conservatives. But then, American partisan divisions have reached an all time high. What happened to the "heal the world" mantra espoused by Barack Obama?
> 
> Where are all the old style Democrats who  seem to have disappeared into the ether? Such as Kennedy, who could become a hawk when needed. Or Clinton, who was prepared to move to the centre, when expedient.
> 
> Present day liberals bear no relation to Democrats, IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I would say present day conservatives bear no relation to previous generation Republicans.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*Liberalism*"
> As mentioned earlier (post 2950), the USA was founded on this ideology.
> Can any *conservative* justify their contrarian position without exposing their hypocrisy, greed, and intolerance?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants.  I would like a list from you as to why we should.  I like to measure the pros and cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
> This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees
> 
> We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who you want to blame.  I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever.  I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros.  Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> _"I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever."_
> 
> That sounds really *COLD.*
> :-(
> 
> Not very Christian-like, and i'm not even religious. Just have *empathy*.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is part of our problem.  Bleeding hearts.  You don't make policy based on what "feels good."  You make policy based on what is BEST for your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> What's best for a country, and Earth collectively, is what "feels good" overall ... among ALL participants in this GLOBAL economy of ours nowadays.
> .
Click to expand...


That is incorrect.  We have limited resources, as I explained earlier in the thread.


----------



## ChrisL

We used to take immigrants because it was of benefit to the country.  That is not the case any longer.  We need to look over why we still do things and how they benefit and how they hurt us, our economy, etc.


----------



## Dhara

Is it ok with you if we disagree?  It's ok with me.  I cannot adopt your way of looking at this situation of the Syrian refugees.  It just doesn't fit for me, and I don't think your position benefits our country or our position on the world stage.

IMO, conservatives like Trump are dangerous for America and are terrorists best recruiting tool.

Conservative during the Vietnam War acknowledged that we owed something to the Vietnamese people having ravaged their country.  We had a role in Syria's demise, we owe them.  Just my opinion, of course.
 I acknowledge that you worry about America's security, but if you truly want to combat extremism you don't allow ordinary Syrian citizens to languish in bleak camps abroad.

America needs to do her part.  We helped break Syria, now we need to help fix it.  And to do so, in order to combat extremism.  

Trump and trumpeters don't understand how they play into the terrorists hands.  Families cramming into rubber boats to escape extremism have more to think about than militancy.

I don't expect you to change your position.  I only seek to have my voice in the conversation and to respectfully disagree whole heartedly with your position, and to help you understand why I think the way I do.


----------



## Wake

A person can believe in every thing you believe in and be a nasty person. A person can disagree with every thing you believe in and be a good person.

Always separate the person from his or her set of beliefs.


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> Is it ok with you if we disagree?  It's ok with me.  I cannot adopt your way of looking at this situation of the Syrian refugees.  It just doesn't fit for me, and I don't think your position benefits our country or our position on the world stage.
> 
> IMO, conservatives like Trump are dangerous for America and are terrorists best recruiting tool.
> 
> Conservative during the Vietnam War acknowledged that we owed something to the Vietnamese people having ravaged their country.  We had a role in Syria's demise, we owe them.  Just my opinion, of course.
> I acknowledge that you worry about America's security, but if you truly want to combat extremism you don't allow ordinary Syrian citizens to languish in bleak camps abroad.
> 
> America needs to do her part.  We helped break Syria, now we need to help fix it.  And to do so, in order to combat extremism.
> 
> Trump and trumpeters don't understand how they play into the terrorists hands.  Families cramming into rubber boats to escape extremism have more to think about than militancy.
> 
> I don't expect you to change your position.  I only seek to have my voice in the conversation and to respectfully disagree whole heartedly with your position, and to help you understand why I think the way I do.



My position has nothing to do with Donald Trump.  Lol.  It is based on weighing the pros and cons and logic and common sense.    I am NOT a Trumpet.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dhara said:


> Is it ok with you if we disagree?  It's ok with me.  I cannot adopt your way of looking at this situation of the Syrian refugees.  It just doesn't fit for me, and I don't think your position benefits our country or our position on the world stage.
> 
> IMO, conservatives like Trump are dangerous for America and are terrorists best recruiting tool.
> 
> Conservative during the Vietnam War acknowledged that we owed something to the Vietnamese people having ravaged their country.  We had a role in Syria's demise, we owe them.  Just my opinion, of course.
> I acknowledge that you worry about America's security, but if you truly want to combat extremism you don't allow ordinary Syrian citizens to languish in bleak camps abroad.
> 
> America needs to do her part.  We helped break Syria, now we need to help fix it.  And to do so, in order to combat extremism.
> 
> Trump and trumpeters don't understand how they play into the terrorists hands.  Families cramming into rubber boats to escape extremism have more to think about than militancy.
> 
> I don't expect you to change your position.  I only seek to have my voice in the conversation and to respectfully disagree whole heartedly with your position, and to help you understand why I think the way I do.


Riddle me this................What is the religion of the Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees we took into this country and how does it compare to the ones coming from the Middle East?


----------



## Desperado

ChrisL said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they will not mind their own business.  They will give you their opinion whether you ask for it or not.
> More often than not, their mind are closed to any discussion.  To them it is their way or the highway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "them" and "they?"  Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

Sure I can elaborate,"Them & They" = Liberals and Progressives


----------



## Foxfyre

Dhara said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants.  I would like a list from you as to why we should.  I like to measure the pros and cons.
> 
> 
> 
> Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
> This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees
> 
> We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who you want to blame.  I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever.  I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros.  Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my job to convince you of anything.  I don't care if you keep your position or not.  You're entitled to it.  You asked me what reasons I have for wanting to admit refugees into our country as immigrants, and I gave you  a major one.
> 
> The US once accepted 800,000 Vietnamese refugees.  We have accepted only 1500 Syrians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were the South Vietnamese blowing holes in our ships or bombing or burning down our embassies and killing as many personnel as they could?  Were there terrorists among them determined to explode bombs in crowds of U.S. citizens or send suicide bombers or gunners into U.S. businesses?  Were the South Vietnamese trying to get a dirty bomb into the USA or were hijacking airplane to fly into buildings killing thousands of innocent Americans?
> 
> I have personally helped settle both Cuban and Vietnamese refugees over the years.  And in every case those people wanted to adopt the American way of life, fit in, be Americans, and be a positive influence here.  Destroying 'infidels' was the furthest thing from their minds.
> 
> Both the State Department and Defense Department spokespersons have admitted we have no way to separate out the terrorists from peaceful people among the Syrian refugees.  And that there are thousands of terrorists who would take every advantage given them to get into this country, including posing as peaceful Syrian refugees.  You don't see the government proposing that these people be taken in near the White House or placed in neighborhoods where government officials and their families live do you?   How many are you willing to accept next door to you when you know it is possible somebody who wants to kill you would likely be among them?
> 
> By all means offer humanitarian aid to those who are suffering.  Our nation has always done that.  But how stupid do we have to be in order to be considered humane?  And what do you tell the survivors to justify a policy when it is their loved ones being maimed and murdered?
> 
> And while most Muslims would almost surely choose peace over mayhem, there are many thousands of Muslims who will commit mayhem and murder on a large scale here the first opportunity they have to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muslims in America want the same things that Cuban and Vietnamese refugees want.  I think it's a mistake to stereotype Syrians, (Christians among them) as jihadis.  Just my opinon.  You're entitled to yours, which differs from mine.  I don't appreciate you characterizing people who see things differently from you as "stupid".  Plenty of people thought America should not have interned Japanese "Americans during WWII.  That was not an instance of America at our best, IMO.
> 
> We all have loved ones and want the best for our loved ones.  I don't want my kids to grow up to be prejudiced against Muslims, because some misinterpret Islam as to suppport bad actions.
> Trump completely is playing into ISIL's hands.  He's a good recruiter for them.  I want people in that part of the world to understand that America is composed of many types of people and we still are united as one America.  That is what makes our country great.
Click to expand...


I haven't characterized anybody as jihadists and neither I nor my kids are prejudiced in any way toward Muslims.  I am just not so stupid that I try to pretend that jihadists don't exist or that they would not pose as legitimate refugees in order to have opportunity to commit chaos, mayhem, and murder here.  Please tell me how you tell the difference between a legitimate refugee and a jihadist and maybe you'll have a reasonable argument.  And how much are you willing to put your own kids at risk?  Or is just the rest of us who must be willing to put our families at unnecessary risk in order to be considered 'unprejudiced' or 'inhumane'?


----------



## ChrisL

Desperado said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they will not mind their own business.  They will give you their opinion whether you ask for it or not.
> More often than not, their mind are closed to any discussion.  To them it is their way or the highway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "them" and "they?"  Care to elaborate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I can elaborate,"Them & They" = Liberals and Progressives
Click to expand...


Oh, thanks.  I couldn't be sure if you were talking about the refugees or something else.


----------



## Dhara

Foxfyre said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
> This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees
> 
> We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care who you want to blame.  I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever.  I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros.  Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my job to convince you of anything.  I don't care if you keep your position or not.  You're entitled to it.  You asked me what reasons I have for wanting to admit refugees into our country as immigrants, and I gave you  a major one.
> 
> The US once accepted 800,000 Vietnamese refugees.  We have accepted only 1500 Syrians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were the South Vietnamese blowing holes in our ships or bombing or burning down our embassies and killing as many personnel as they could?  Were there terrorists among them determined to explode bombs in crowds of U.S. citizens or send suicide bombers or gunners into U.S. businesses?  Were the South Vietnamese trying to get a dirty bomb into the USA or were hijacking airplane to fly into buildings killing thousands of innocent Americans?
> 
> I have personally helped settle both Cuban and Vietnamese refugees over the years.  And in every case those people wanted to adopt the American way of life, fit in, be Americans, and be a positive influence here.  Destroying 'infidels' was the furthest thing from their minds.
> 
> Both the State Department and Defense Department spokespersons have admitted we have no way to separate out the terrorists from peaceful people among the Syrian refugees.  And that there are thousands of terrorists who would take every advantage given them to get into this country, including posing as peaceful Syrian refugees.  You don't see the government proposing that these people be taken in near the White House or placed in neighborhoods where government officials and their families live do you?   How many are you willing to accept next door to you when you know it is possible somebody who wants to kill you would likely be among them?
> 
> By all means offer humanitarian aid to those who are suffering.  Our nation has always done that.  But how stupid do we have to be in order to be considered humane?  And what do you tell the survivors to justify a policy when it is their loved ones being maimed and murdered?
> 
> And while most Muslims would almost surely choose peace over mayhem, there are many thousands of Muslims who will commit mayhem and murder on a large scale here the first opportunity they have to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muslims in America want the same things that Cuban and Vietnamese refugees want.  I think it's a mistake to stereotype Syrians, (Christians among them) as jihadis.  Just my opinon.  You're entitled to yours, which differs from mine.  I don't appreciate you characterizing people who see things differently from you as "stupid".  Plenty of people thought America should not have interned Japanese "Americans during WWII.  That was not an instance of America at our best, IMO.
> 
> We all have loved ones and want the best for our loved ones.  I don't want my kids to grow up to be prejudiced against Muslims, because some misinterpret Islam as to suppport bad actions.
> Trump completely is playing into ISIL's hands.  He's a good recruiter for them.  I want people in that part of the world to understand that America is composed of many types of people and we still are united as one America.  That is what makes our country great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't characterized anybody as jihadists and neither I nor my kids are prejudiced in any way toward Muslims.  I am just not so stupid that I try to pretend that jihadists don't exist or that they would not pose as legitimate refugees in order to have opportunity to commit chaos, mayhem, and murder here.  Please tell me how you tell the difference between a legitimate refugee and a jihadist and maybe you'll have a reasonable argument.  And how much are you willing to put your own kids at risk?  Or is just the rest of us who must be willing to put our families at unnecessary risk in order to be considered 'unprejudiced' or 'inhumane'?
Click to expand...

Wow.  You continue to call anyone who doesn't agree with you, "stupid".  That's too bad.  We just see what will help our country differently.  I know terrorists exist, I just don't think that all the people fleeing Syria are "jihadists".

My kids are as important to me as breath.  That doesn't mean I think reactionary politics on immigration policy keeps our country safer.

I think conservatives are wrong on this one.  Scrapping the Syrian refugee plan propsed by President Obama would be giving ISIS precisely what it wants.

Any Syrian refugees we accept will be carefully screened in order to make sure they’re legitimate. If anyone from ISIS were to find a way to get into the United States, it certainly wouldn’t be by trying to sneak in through a carefully monitored refugee program; there would be other less difficult ways they’d try first.

If you want to have a courteous conversation about this topic, I'd advise you to not calling your debate opponents "stupid".

It's your choice, of course.  All I can do is state my preferences and tell you how limited my time is.


----------



## Dhara

ChrisL said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it ok with you if we disagree?  It's ok with me.  I cannot adopt your way of looking at this situation of the Syrian refugees.  It just doesn't fit for me, and I don't think your position benefits our country or our position on the world stage.
> 
> IMO, conservatives like Trump are dangerous for America and are terrorists best recruiting tool.
> 
> Conservative during the Vietnam War acknowledged that we owed something to the Vietnamese people having ravaged their country.  We had a role in Syria's demise, we owe them.  Just my opinion, of course.
> I acknowledge that you worry about America's security, but if you truly want to combat extremism you don't allow ordinary Syrian citizens to languish in bleak camps abroad.
> 
> America needs to do her part.  We helped break Syria, now we need to help fix it.  And to do so, in order to combat extremism.
> 
> Trump and trumpeters don't understand how they play into the terrorists hands.  Families cramming into rubber boats to escape extremism have more to think about than militancy.
> 
> I don't expect you to change your position.  I only seek to have my voice in the conversation and to respectfully disagree whole heartedly with your position, and to help you understand why I think the way I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My position has nothing to do with Donald Trump.  Lol.  It is based on weighing the pros and cons and logic and common sense.    I am NOT a Trumpet.
Click to expand...

That may very well be the case that you just happen to agree with Mr Trump on Syria through weighing pros and cons.

Trump doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Dhara

Back in 1954 we granted entry to a Syrian immigrant named Abdulfattah Jandali. You probably know him better as the father of Steve Jobs. If we hadn’t allowed Jandali in, (and the conservatives of the era certainly didn’t want him,) we probably wouldn’t have iPhones right now.


----------



## Dhara

eagle1462010 said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it ok with you if we disagree?  It's ok with me.  I cannot adopt your way of looking at this situation of the Syrian refugees.  It just doesn't fit for me, and I don't think your position benefits our country or our position on the world stage.
> 
> IMO, conservatives like Trump are dangerous for America and are terrorists best recruiting tool.
> 
> Conservative during the Vietnam War acknowledged that we owed something to the Vietnamese people having ravaged their country.  We had a role in Syria's demise, we owe them.  Just my opinion, of course.
> I acknowledge that you worry about America's security, but if you truly want to combat extremism you don't allow ordinary Syrian citizens to languish in bleak camps abroad.
> 
> America needs to do her part.  We helped break Syria, now we need to help fix it.  And to do so, in order to combat extremism.
> 
> Trump and trumpeters don't understand how they play into the terrorists hands.  Families cramming into rubber boats to escape extremism have more to think about than militancy.
> 
> I don't expect you to change your position.  I only seek to have my voice in the conversation and to respectfully disagree whole heartedly with your position, and to help you understand why I think the way I do.
> 
> 
> 
> Riddle me this................What is the religion of the Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees we took into this country and how does it compare to the ones coming from the Middle East?
Click to expand...


The aim of all religion is peace of mind and heart.  The fact that Syrians are Muslim and Christian shouldn't be a reason to not admit them into the US.

If your point is that the Vietnamese and Cambodia refugees are primarly Buddhist and the Syrian refugees are either Muslim or Christian,then yes, there are vast differences between the Buddhist religion and Abrahamic religions of Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

Conservatives during the time of Vietnam made more sense to me than conservatives today.

ISIS doesn’t want us accepting Syrian refugees because it would rather continue massacring them. For that reason alone we should take them in.


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it ok with you if we disagree?  It's ok with me.  I cannot adopt your way of looking at this situation of the Syrian refugees.  It just doesn't fit for me, and I don't think your position benefits our country or our position on the world stage.
> 
> IMO, conservatives like Trump are dangerous for America and are terrorists best recruiting tool.
> 
> Conservative during the Vietnam War acknowledged that we owed something to the Vietnamese people having ravaged their country.  We had a role in Syria's demise, we owe them.  Just my opinion, of course.
> I acknowledge that you worry about America's security, but if you truly want to combat extremism you don't allow ordinary Syrian citizens to languish in bleak camps abroad.
> 
> America needs to do her part.  We helped break Syria, now we need to help fix it.  And to do so, in order to combat extremism.
> 
> Trump and trumpeters don't understand how they play into the terrorists hands.  Families cramming into rubber boats to escape extremism have more to think about than militancy.
> 
> I don't expect you to change your position.  I only seek to have my voice in the conversation and to respectfully disagree whole heartedly with your position, and to help you understand why I think the way I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My position has nothing to do with Donald Trump.  Lol.  It is based on weighing the pros and cons and logic and common sense.    I am NOT a Trumpet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That may very well be the case that you just happen to agree with Mr Trump on Syria through weighing pros and cons.
> 
> Trump doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...


Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.


----------



## Dhara

ChrisL said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it ok with you if we disagree?  It's ok with me.  I cannot adopt your way of looking at this situation of the Syrian refugees.  It just doesn't fit for me, and I don't think your position benefits our country or our position on the world stage.
> 
> IMO, conservatives like Trump are dangerous for America and are terrorists best recruiting tool.
> 
> Conservative during the Vietnam War acknowledged that we owed something to the Vietnamese people having ravaged their country.  We had a role in Syria's demise, we owe them.  Just my opinion, of course.
> I acknowledge that you worry about America's security, but if you truly want to combat extremism you don't allow ordinary Syrian citizens to languish in bleak camps abroad.
> 
> America needs to do her part.  We helped break Syria, now we need to help fix it.  And to do so, in order to combat extremism.
> 
> Trump and trumpeters don't understand how they play into the terrorists hands.  Families cramming into rubber boats to escape extremism have more to think about than militancy.
> 
> I don't expect you to change your position.  I only seek to have my voice in the conversation and to respectfully disagree whole heartedly with your position, and to help you understand why I think the way I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My position has nothing to do with Donald Trump.  Lol.  It is based on weighing the pros and cons and logic and common sense.    I am NOT a Trumpet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That may very well be the case that you just happen to agree with Mr Trump on Syria through weighing pros and cons.
> 
> Trump doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
Click to expand...

Are you calling me a "blind squirrel"?


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it ok with you if we disagree?  It's ok with me.  I cannot adopt your way of looking at this situation of the Syrian refugees.  It just doesn't fit for me, and I don't think your position benefits our country or our position on the world stage.
> 
> IMO, conservatives like Trump are dangerous for America and are terrorists best recruiting tool.
> 
> Conservative during the Vietnam War acknowledged that we owed something to the Vietnamese people having ravaged their country.  We had a role in Syria's demise, we owe them.  Just my opinion, of course.
> I acknowledge that you worry about America's security, but if you truly want to combat extremism you don't allow ordinary Syrian citizens to languish in bleak camps abroad.
> 
> America needs to do her part.  We helped break Syria, now we need to help fix it.  And to do so, in order to combat extremism.
> 
> Trump and trumpeters don't understand how they play into the terrorists hands.  Families cramming into rubber boats to escape extremism have more to think about than militancy.
> 
> I don't expect you to change your position.  I only seek to have my voice in the conversation and to respectfully disagree whole heartedly with your position, and to help you understand why I think the way I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My position has nothing to do with Donald Trump.  Lol.  It is based on weighing the pros and cons and logic and common sense.    I am NOT a Trumpet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That may very well be the case that you just happen to agree with Mr Trump on Syria through weighing pros and cons.
> 
> Trump doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you calling me a "blind squirrel"?
Click to expand...


No.  Donald Trump is the blind squirrel.  Lol.


----------



## Dhara

ChrisL said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it ok with you if we disagree?  It's ok with me.  I cannot adopt your way of looking at this situation of the Syrian refugees.  It just doesn't fit for me, and I don't think your position benefits our country or our position on the world stage.
> 
> IMO, conservatives like Trump are dangerous for America and are terrorists best recruiting tool.
> 
> Conservative during the Vietnam War acknowledged that we owed something to the Vietnamese people having ravaged their country.  We had a role in Syria's demise, we owe them.  Just my opinion, of course.
> I acknowledge that you worry about America's security, but if you truly want to combat extremism you don't allow ordinary Syrian citizens to languish in bleak camps abroad.
> 
> America needs to do her part.  We helped break Syria, now we need to help fix it.  And to do so, in order to combat extremism.
> 
> Trump and trumpeters don't understand how they play into the terrorists hands.  Families cramming into rubber boats to escape extremism have more to think about than militancy.
> 
> I don't expect you to change your position.  I only seek to have my voice in the conversation and to respectfully disagree whole heartedly with your position, and to help you understand why I think the way I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My position has nothing to do with Donald Trump.  Lol.  It is based on weighing the pros and cons and logic and common sense.    I am NOT a Trumpet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That may very well be the case that you just happen to agree with Mr Trump on Syria through weighing pros and cons.
> 
> Trump doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you calling me a "blind squirrel"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Donald Trump is the blind squirrel.  Lol.
Click to expand...

Oh, well he's certainly a nutter.


----------



## Dhara

I wish the US had more courage. The United States makes it hard for people to get refugee status, so it is unlikely that many terrorists will make it through. 

Of course, it only takes a handful to launch an attack. Welcoming the refugees marginally raises the risk of domestic terrorism. It is rational to ask if the tradeoff is worth it. 

I think it is.


----------



## thanatos144

Dhara said:


> I wish the US had more courage.


I wish it had no progressive traitors 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dhara

thanatos144 said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish the US had more courage.
> 
> 
> 
> I wish it had no progressive traitors
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying whether I ought to read your posts or not, thanatos.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dhara said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care who you want to blame.  I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever.  I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros.  Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my job to convince you of anything.  I don't care if you keep your position or not.  You're entitled to it.  You asked me what reasons I have for wanting to admit refugees into our country as immigrants, and I gave you  a major one.
> 
> The US once accepted 800,000 Vietnamese refugees.  We have accepted only 1500 Syrians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were the South Vietnamese blowing holes in our ships or bombing or burning down our embassies and killing as many personnel as they could?  Were there terrorists among them determined to explode bombs in crowds of U.S. citizens or send suicide bombers or gunners into U.S. businesses?  Were the South Vietnamese trying to get a dirty bomb into the USA or were hijacking airplane to fly into buildings killing thousands of innocent Americans?
> 
> I have personally helped settle both Cuban and Vietnamese refugees over the years.  And in every case those people wanted to adopt the American way of life, fit in, be Americans, and be a positive influence here.  Destroying 'infidels' was the furthest thing from their minds.
> 
> Both the State Department and Defense Department spokespersons have admitted we have no way to separate out the terrorists from peaceful people among the Syrian refugees.  And that there are thousands of terrorists who would take every advantage given them to get into this country, including posing as peaceful Syrian refugees.  You don't see the government proposing that these people be taken in near the White House or placed in neighborhoods where government officials and their families live do you?   How many are you willing to accept next door to you when you know it is possible somebody who wants to kill you would likely be among them?
> 
> By all means offer humanitarian aid to those who are suffering.  Our nation has always done that.  But how stupid do we have to be in order to be considered humane?  And what do you tell the survivors to justify a policy when it is their loved ones being maimed and murdered?
> 
> And while most Muslims would almost surely choose peace over mayhem, there are many thousands of Muslims who will commit mayhem and murder on a large scale here the first opportunity they have to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muslims in America want the same things that Cuban and Vietnamese refugees want.  I think it's a mistake to stereotype Syrians, (Christians among them) as jihadis.  Just my opinon.  You're entitled to yours, which differs from mine.  I don't appreciate you characterizing people who see things differently from you as "stupid".  Plenty of people thought America should not have interned Japanese "Americans during WWII.  That was not an instance of America at our best, IMO.
> 
> We all have loved ones and want the best for our loved ones.  I don't want my kids to grow up to be prejudiced against Muslims, because some misinterpret Islam as to suppport bad actions.
> Trump completely is playing into ISIL's hands.  He's a good recruiter for them.  I want people in that part of the world to understand that America is composed of many types of people and we still are united as one America.  That is what makes our country great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't characterized anybody as jihadists and neither I nor my kids are prejudiced in any way toward Muslims.  I am just not so stupid that I try to pretend that jihadists don't exist or that they would not pose as legitimate refugees in order to have opportunity to commit chaos, mayhem, and murder here.  Please tell me how you tell the difference between a legitimate refugee and a jihadist and maybe you'll have a reasonable argument.  And how much are you willing to put your own kids at risk?  Or is just the rest of us who must be willing to put our families at unnecessary risk in order to be considered 'unprejudiced' or 'inhumane'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.  You continue to call anyone who doesn't agree with you, "stupid".  That's too bad.  We just see what will help our country differently.  I know terrorists exist, I just don't think that all the people fleeing Syria are "jihadists".
> 
> My kids are as important to me as breath.  That doesn't mean I think reactionary politics on immigration policy keeps our country safer.
> 
> I think conservatives are wrong on this one.  Scrapping the Syrian refugee plan propsed by President Obama would be giving ISIS precisely what it wants.
> 
> Any Syrian refugees we accept will be carefully screened in order to make sure they’re legitimate. If anyone from ISIS were to find a way to get into the United States, it certainly wouldn’t be by trying to sneak in through a carefully monitored refugee program; there would be other less difficult ways they’d try first.
> 
> If you want to have a courteous conversation about this topic, I'd advise you to not calling your debate opponents "stupid".
> 
> It's your choice, of course.  All I can do is state my preferences and tell you how limited my time is.
Click to expand...


If somebody is willing to invite terrorists to have opportunity to maim or murder his loved ones, then yes, I don't agree with that because I think it is pretty stupid.  So I guess I agree with you that those who don't agree with me about that are stupid about that.  And by declaring me discourteous about that, can I assume that you don't believe Jihadists exist?  How much are you willing to risk your own family?   But if that disqualifies me from having a courteous conversation with you, oh well.  How many of your posts have suggested that those who think like me are hard hearted, bigoted, prejudiced uncompassionate, unempathetic, etc. etc. etc.?  I suppose that is more courteous?  Do have a pleasant evening and a great holiday season Dhara.


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> I wish the US had more courage. The United States makes it hard for people to get refugee status, so it is unlikely that many terrorists will make it through.
> 
> Of course, it only takes a handful to launch an attack. Welcoming the refugees marginally raises the risk of domestic terrorism. It is rational to ask if the tradeoff is worth it.
> 
> I think it is.



Trade off?  Usually in a trade off, both sides gain something.  We don't gain anything by taking in refugees from the dysfunctional ME.


----------



## ChrisL

Foxfyre said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my job to convince you of anything.  I don't care if you keep your position or not.  You're entitled to it.  You asked me what reasons I have for wanting to admit refugees into our country as immigrants, and I gave you  a major one.
> 
> The US once accepted 800,000 Vietnamese refugees.  We have accepted only 1500 Syrians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were the South Vietnamese blowing holes in our ships or bombing or burning down our embassies and killing as many personnel as they could?  Were there terrorists among them determined to explode bombs in crowds of U.S. citizens or send suicide bombers or gunners into U.S. businesses?  Were the South Vietnamese trying to get a dirty bomb into the USA or were hijacking airplane to fly into buildings killing thousands of innocent Americans?
> 
> I have personally helped settle both Cuban and Vietnamese refugees over the years.  And in every case those people wanted to adopt the American way of life, fit in, be Americans, and be a positive influence here.  Destroying 'infidels' was the furthest thing from their minds.
> 
> Both the State Department and Defense Department spokespersons have admitted we have no way to separate out the terrorists from peaceful people among the Syrian refugees.  And that there are thousands of terrorists who would take every advantage given them to get into this country, including posing as peaceful Syrian refugees.  You don't see the government proposing that these people be taken in near the White House or placed in neighborhoods where government officials and their families live do you?   How many are you willing to accept next door to you when you know it is possible somebody who wants to kill you would likely be among them?
> 
> By all means offer humanitarian aid to those who are suffering.  Our nation has always done that.  But how stupid do we have to be in order to be considered humane?  And what do you tell the survivors to justify a policy when it is their loved ones being maimed and murdered?
> 
> And while most Muslims would almost surely choose peace over mayhem, there are many thousands of Muslims who will commit mayhem and murder on a large scale here the first opportunity they have to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muslims in America want the same things that Cuban and Vietnamese refugees want.  I think it's a mistake to stereotype Syrians, (Christians among them) as jihadis.  Just my opinon.  You're entitled to yours, which differs from mine.  I don't appreciate you characterizing people who see things differently from you as "stupid".  Plenty of people thought America should not have interned Japanese "Americans during WWII.  That was not an instance of America at our best, IMO.
> 
> We all have loved ones and want the best for our loved ones.  I don't want my kids to grow up to be prejudiced against Muslims, because some misinterpret Islam as to suppport bad actions.
> Trump completely is playing into ISIL's hands.  He's a good recruiter for them.  I want people in that part of the world to understand that America is composed of many types of people and we still are united as one America.  That is what makes our country great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't characterized anybody as jihadists and neither I nor my kids are prejudiced in any way toward Muslims.  I am just not so stupid that I try to pretend that jihadists don't exist or that they would not pose as legitimate refugees in order to have opportunity to commit chaos, mayhem, and murder here.  Please tell me how you tell the difference between a legitimate refugee and a jihadist and maybe you'll have a reasonable argument.  And how much are you willing to put your own kids at risk?  Or is just the rest of us who must be willing to put our families at unnecessary risk in order to be considered 'unprejudiced' or 'inhumane'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.  You continue to call anyone who doesn't agree with you, "stupid".  That's too bad.  We just see what will help our country differently.  I know terrorists exist, I just don't think that all the people fleeing Syria are "jihadists".
> 
> My kids are as important to me as breath.  That doesn't mean I think reactionary politics on immigration policy keeps our country safer.
> 
> I think conservatives are wrong on this one.  Scrapping the Syrian refugee plan propsed by President Obama would be giving ISIS precisely what it wants.
> 
> Any Syrian refugees we accept will be carefully screened in order to make sure they’re legitimate. If anyone from ISIS were to find a way to get into the United States, it certainly wouldn’t be by trying to sneak in through a carefully monitored refugee program; there would be other less difficult ways they’d try first.
> 
> If you want to have a courteous conversation about this topic, I'd advise you to not calling your debate opponents "stupid".
> 
> It's your choice, of course.  All I can do is state my preferences and tell you how limited my time is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If somebody is willing to invite terrorists to have opportunity to maim or murder his loved ones, then yes, I don't agree with that because I think it is pretty stupid.  So I guess I agree with you that those who don't agree with me about that are stupid about that.  And by declaring me discourteous about that, can I assume that you don't believe Jihadists exist?  How much are you willing to risk your own family?   But if that disqualifies me from having a courteous conversation with you, oh well.  How many of your posts have suggested that those who think like me are hard hearted, bigoted, prejudiced uncompassionate, unempathetic, etc. etc. etc.?  I suppose that is more courteous?  Do have a pleasant evening and a great holiday season Dhara.
Click to expand...


Foxy, you are one of the nicest people here!  No worries.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dhara said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it ok with you if we disagree?  It's ok with me.  I cannot adopt your way of looking at this situation of the Syrian refugees.  It just doesn't fit for me, and I don't think your position benefits our country or our position on the world stage.
> 
> IMO, conservatives like Trump are dangerous for America and are terrorists best recruiting tool.
> 
> Conservative during the Vietnam War acknowledged that we owed something to the Vietnamese people having ravaged their country.  We had a role in Syria's demise, we owe them.  Just my opinion, of course.
> I acknowledge that you worry about America's security, but if you truly want to combat extremism you don't allow ordinary Syrian citizens to languish in bleak camps abroad.
> 
> America needs to do her part.  We helped break Syria, now we need to help fix it.  And to do so, in order to combat extremism.
> 
> Trump and trumpeters don't understand how they play into the terrorists hands.  Families cramming into rubber boats to escape extremism have more to think about than militancy.
> 
> I don't expect you to change your position.  I only seek to have my voice in the conversation and to respectfully disagree whole heartedly with your position, and to help you understand why I think the way I do.
> 
> 
> 
> Riddle me this................What is the religion of the Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees we took into this country and how does it compare to the ones coming from the Middle East?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The aim of all religion is peace of mind and heart.  The fact that Syrians are Muslim and Christian shouldn't be a reason to not admit them into the US.
> 
> If your point is that the Vietnamese and Cambodia refugees are primarly Buddhist and the Syrian refugees are either Muslim or Christian,then yes, there are vast differences between the Buddhist religion and Abrahamic religions of Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
> 
> Conservatives during the time of Vietnam made more sense to me than conservatives today.
> 
> ISIS doesn’t want us accepting Syrian refugees because it would rather continue massacring them. For that reason alone we should take them in.
Click to expand...

ISIS has openly stated they will infiltrate us with the refugees.  There is no legitimate way to ensure proper vetting and under that RISK there is no reason to take any.  We don't know the good guys from the bad guys........

While we are at it.........Why aren't we doing the same for the Sudanese people who have had SIMILAR casualties as in Syria. The same barbaric acts going on in Syria have been going on in Sudan for over 25 years, and in the recent Wars there over 300,000 have been killed.  Some Crucified just like we see in Syria.  Millions have die there in the current Genocide there over time.  Do you see the World demanding they be saved and taken in.

Where is the planes bombing these Radical Jihadist killing people there.

There are horrible things going on all over the world.  We don't have the responsibility to take them all in at all.  In regards to Vietnam..........we took in so many because they were allied to us and leaving them there would have been a death sentence.  Let me repeat.........ALLIED TO US..............Not the same as Syria.

The Western powers, including the United States could Massacre the entire ISIS movement in Syria in a matter of months..........but lack the WILL to END THE THREAT.  Which would end the reason to leave all together.


----------



## Dhara

Foxfyre said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my job to convince you of anything.  I don't care if you keep your position or not.  You're entitled to it.  You asked me what reasons I have for wanting to admit refugees into our country as immigrants, and I gave you  a major one.
> 
> The US once accepted 800,000 Vietnamese refugees.  We have accepted only 1500 Syrians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were the South Vietnamese blowing holes in our ships or bombing or burning down our embassies and killing as many personnel as they could?  Were there terrorists among them determined to explode bombs in crowds of U.S. citizens or send suicide bombers or gunners into U.S. businesses?  Were the South Vietnamese trying to get a dirty bomb into the USA or were hijacking airplane to fly into buildings killing thousands of innocent Americans?
> 
> I have personally helped settle both Cuban and Vietnamese refugees over the years.  And in every case those people wanted to adopt the American way of life, fit in, be Americans, and be a positive influence here.  Destroying 'infidels' was the furthest thing from their minds.
> 
> Both the State Department and Defense Department spokespersons have admitted we have no way to separate out the terrorists from peaceful people among the Syrian refugees.  And that there are thousands of terrorists who would take every advantage given them to get into this country, including posing as peaceful Syrian refugees.  You don't see the government proposing that these people be taken in near the White House or placed in neighborhoods where government officials and their families live do you?   How many are you willing to accept next door to you when you know it is possible somebody who wants to kill you would likely be among them?
> 
> By all means offer humanitarian aid to those who are suffering.  Our nation has always done that.  But how stupid do we have to be in order to be considered humane?  And what do you tell the survivors to justify a policy when it is their loved ones being maimed and murdered?
> 
> And while most Muslims would almost surely choose peace over mayhem, there are many thousands of Muslims who will commit mayhem and murder on a large scale here the first opportunity they have to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muslims in America want the same things that Cuban and Vietnamese refugees want.  I think it's a mistake to stereotype Syrians, (Christians among them) as jihadis.  Just my opinon.  You're entitled to yours, which differs from mine.  I don't appreciate you characterizing people who see things differently from you as "stupid".  Plenty of people thought America should not have interned Japanese "Americans during WWII.  That was not an instance of America at our best, IMO.
> 
> We all have loved ones and want the best for our loved ones.  I don't want my kids to grow up to be prejudiced against Muslims, because some misinterpret Islam as to suppport bad actions.
> Trump completely is playing into ISIL's hands.  He's a good recruiter for them.  I want people in that part of the world to understand that America is composed of many types of people and we still are united as one America.  That is what makes our country great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't characterized anybody as jihadists and neither I nor my kids are prejudiced in any way toward Muslims.  I am just not so stupid that I try to pretend that jihadists don't exist or that they would not pose as legitimate refugees in order to have opportunity to commit chaos, mayhem, and murder here.  Please tell me how you tell the difference between a legitimate refugee and a jihadist and maybe you'll have a reasonable argument.  And how much are you willing to put your own kids at risk?  Or is just the rest of us who must be willing to put our families at unnecessary risk in order to be considered 'unprejudiced' or 'inhumane'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.  You continue to call anyone who doesn't agree with you, "stupid".  That's too bad.  We just see what will help our country differently.  I know terrorists exist, I just don't think that all the people fleeing Syria are "jihadists".
> 
> My kids are as important to me as breath.  That doesn't mean I think reactionary politics on immigration policy keeps our country safer.
> 
> I think conservatives are wrong on this one.  Scrapping the Syrian refugee plan propsed by President Obama would be giving ISIS precisely what it wants.
> 
> Any Syrian refugees we accept will be carefully screened in order to make sure they’re legitimate. If anyone from ISIS were to find a way to get into the United States, it certainly wouldn’t be by trying to sneak in through a carefully monitored refugee program; there would be other less difficult ways they’d try first.
> 
> If you want to have a courteous conversation about this topic, I'd advise you to not calling your debate opponents "stupid".
> 
> It's your choice, of course.  All I can do is state my preferences and tell you how limited my time is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If somebody is willing to invite terrorists to have opportunity to maim or murder his loved ones, then yes, I don't agree with that because I think it is pretty stupid.  So I guess I agree with you that those who don't agree with me about that are stupid about that.  And by declaring me discourteous about that, can I assume that you don't believe Jihadists exist?  How much are you willing to risk your own family?   But if that disqualifies me from having a courteous conversation with you, oh well.  How many of your posts have suggested that those who think like me are hard hearted, bigoted, prejudiced uncompassionate, unempathetic, etc. etc. etc.?  I suppose that is more courteous?  Do have a pleasant evening and a great holiday season Dhara.
Click to expand...

You equate all Syrian refugees as terrorists, I don't.  I haven't called you any of these names, "hard hearted, bigoted, prejudiced uncompassionate, unempathetic" or "stupid".  I don't think you're a "bad person".

We just think differently on this issue.  Can you live with that?  I can.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dhara said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were the South Vietnamese blowing holes in our ships or bombing or burning down our embassies and killing as many personnel as they could?  Were there terrorists among them determined to explode bombs in crowds of U.S. citizens or send suicide bombers or gunners into U.S. businesses?  Were the South Vietnamese trying to get a dirty bomb into the USA or were hijacking airplane to fly into buildings killing thousands of innocent Americans?
> 
> I have personally helped settle both Cuban and Vietnamese refugees over the years.  And in every case those people wanted to adopt the American way of life, fit in, be Americans, and be a positive influence here.  Destroying 'infidels' was the furthest thing from their minds.
> 
> Both the State Department and Defense Department spokespersons have admitted we have no way to separate out the terrorists from peaceful people among the Syrian refugees.  And that there are thousands of terrorists who would take every advantage given them to get into this country, including posing as peaceful Syrian refugees.  You don't see the government proposing that these people be taken in near the White House or placed in neighborhoods where government officials and their families live do you?   How many are you willing to accept next door to you when you know it is possible somebody who wants to kill you would likely be among them?
> 
> By all means offer humanitarian aid to those who are suffering.  Our nation has always done that.  But how stupid do we have to be in order to be considered humane?  And what do you tell the survivors to justify a policy when it is their loved ones being maimed and murdered?
> 
> And while most Muslims would almost surely choose peace over mayhem, there are many thousands of Muslims who will commit mayhem and murder on a large scale here the first opportunity they have to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims in America want the same things that Cuban and Vietnamese refugees want.  I think it's a mistake to stereotype Syrians, (Christians among them) as jihadis.  Just my opinon.  You're entitled to yours, which differs from mine.  I don't appreciate you characterizing people who see things differently from you as "stupid".  Plenty of people thought America should not have interned Japanese "Americans during WWII.  That was not an instance of America at our best, IMO.
> 
> We all have loved ones and want the best for our loved ones.  I don't want my kids to grow up to be prejudiced against Muslims, because some misinterpret Islam as to suppport bad actions.
> Trump completely is playing into ISIL's hands.  He's a good recruiter for them.  I want people in that part of the world to understand that America is composed of many types of people and we still are united as one America.  That is what makes our country great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't characterized anybody as jihadists and neither I nor my kids are prejudiced in any way toward Muslims.  I am just not so stupid that I try to pretend that jihadists don't exist or that they would not pose as legitimate refugees in order to have opportunity to commit chaos, mayhem, and murder here.  Please tell me how you tell the difference between a legitimate refugee and a jihadist and maybe you'll have a reasonable argument.  And how much are you willing to put your own kids at risk?  Or is just the rest of us who must be willing to put our families at unnecessary risk in order to be considered 'unprejudiced' or 'inhumane'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.  You continue to call anyone who doesn't agree with you, "stupid".  That's too bad.  We just see what will help our country differently.  I know terrorists exist, I just don't think that all the people fleeing Syria are "jihadists".
> 
> My kids are as important to me as breath.  That doesn't mean I think reactionary politics on immigration policy keeps our country safer.
> 
> I think conservatives are wrong on this one.  Scrapping the Syrian refugee plan propsed by President Obama would be giving ISIS precisely what it wants.
> 
> Any Syrian refugees we accept will be carefully screened in order to make sure they’re legitimate. If anyone from ISIS were to find a way to get into the United States, it certainly wouldn’t be by trying to sneak in through a carefully monitored refugee program; there would be other less difficult ways they’d try first.
> 
> If you want to have a courteous conversation about this topic, I'd advise you to not calling your debate opponents "stupid".
> 
> It's your choice, of course.  All I can do is state my preferences and tell you how limited my time is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If somebody is willing to invite terrorists to have opportunity to maim or murder his loved ones, then yes, I don't agree with that because I think it is pretty stupid.  So I guess I agree with you that those who don't agree with me about that are stupid about that.  And by declaring me discourteous about that, can I assume that you don't believe Jihadists exist?  How much are you willing to risk your own family?   But if that disqualifies me from having a courteous conversation with you, oh well.  How many of your posts have suggested that those who think like me are hard hearted, bigoted, prejudiced uncompassionate, unempathetic, etc. etc. etc.?  I suppose that is more courteous?  Do have a pleasant evening and a great holiday season Dhara.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You equate all Syrian refugees as terrorists, I don't.  I haven't called you any of these names, "hard hearted, bigoted, prejudiced uncompassionate, unempathetic" or "stupid".  I don't think you're a "bad person".
> 
> We just think differently on this issue.  Can you live with that?  I can.
Click to expand...


I can't live quietly with those who mischaracterize what I say.   Such as you saying that I equate all Syrian refugees as terrorists which suggests you either don't read carefully or you are deliberately lying about what I have said.  I will give you benefit of the doubt that you don't read carefully.  

But that is definitely one reason a lot of us have a huge problem with liberalism is that it MUST mischaracterize the arguments of those who oppose it in order to have any credubility at all.


----------



## Dhara

Foxfyre said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims in America want the same things that Cuban and Vietnamese refugees want.  I think it's a mistake to stereotype Syrians, (Christians among them) as jihadis.  Just my opinon.  You're entitled to yours, which differs from mine.  I don't appreciate you characterizing people who see things differently from you as "stupid".  Plenty of people thought America should not have interned Japanese "Americans during WWII.  That was not an instance of America at our best, IMO.
> 
> We all have loved ones and want the best for our loved ones.  I don't want my kids to grow up to be prejudiced against Muslims, because some misinterpret Islam as to suppport bad actions.
> Trump completely is playing into ISIL's hands.  He's a good recruiter for them.  I want people in that part of the world to understand that America is composed of many types of people and we still are united as one America.  That is what makes our country great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't characterized anybody as jihadists and neither I nor my kids are prejudiced in any way toward Muslims.  I am just not so stupid that I try to pretend that jihadists don't exist or that they would not pose as legitimate refugees in order to have opportunity to commit chaos, mayhem, and murder here.  Please tell me how you tell the difference between a legitimate refugee and a jihadist and maybe you'll have a reasonable argument.  And how much are you willing to put your own kids at risk?  Or is just the rest of us who must be willing to put our families at unnecessary risk in order to be considered 'unprejudiced' or 'inhumane'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.  You continue to call anyone who doesn't agree with you, "stupid".  That's too bad.  We just see what will help our country differently.  I know terrorists exist, I just don't think that all the people fleeing Syria are "jihadists".
> 
> My kids are as important to me as breath.  That doesn't mean I think reactionary politics on immigration policy keeps our country safer.
> 
> I think conservatives are wrong on this one.  Scrapping the Syrian refugee plan propsed by President Obama would be giving ISIS precisely what it wants.
> 
> Any Syrian refugees we accept will be carefully screened in order to make sure they’re legitimate. If anyone from ISIS were to find a way to get into the United States, it certainly wouldn’t be by trying to sneak in through a carefully monitored refugee program; there would be other less difficult ways they’d try first.
> 
> If you want to have a courteous conversation about this topic, I'd advise you to not calling your debate opponents "stupid".
> 
> It's your choice, of course.  All I can do is state my preferences and tell you how limited my time is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If somebody is willing to invite terrorists to have opportunity to maim or murder his loved ones, then yes, I don't agree with that because I think it is pretty stupid.  So I guess I agree with you that those who don't agree with me about that are stupid about that.  And by declaring me discourteous about that, can I assume that you don't believe Jihadists exist?  How much are you willing to risk your own family?   But if that disqualifies me from having a courteous conversation with you, oh well.  How many of your posts have suggested that those who think like me are hard hearted, bigoted, prejudiced uncompassionate, unempathetic, etc. etc. etc.?  I suppose that is more courteous?  Do have a pleasant evening and a great holiday season Dhara.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You equate all Syrian refugees as terrorists, I don't.  I haven't called you any of these names, "hard hearted, bigoted, prejudiced uncompassionate, unempathetic" or "stupid".  I don't think you're a "bad person".
> 
> We just think differently on this issue.  Can you live with that?  I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't live quietly with those who mischaracterize what I say.   Such as you saying that I equate all Syrian refugees as terrorists which suggests you either don't read carefully or you are deliberately lying about what I have said.  I will give you benefit of the doubt that you don't read carefully.
> 
> But that is definitely one reason a lot of us have a huge problem with liberalism is that it MUST mischaracterize the arguments of those who oppose it in order to have any credubility at all.
Click to expand...

Foxfyre.  It is you who says that we should not welcome Syrian refugees due to security concerns.  That suggests to me that you think Syrians, more than any other refugees, are more likely to be terrorists.  Now if you think that, then I would say your position suggests that  you are adversely prejudiced against Syrian refugees.  You think they are more likely to be terrorists.

I haven't called you names.  I have not said you are, "hard hearted, bigoted, prejudiced uncompassionate, unempathetic" or "stupid".  I haven't said, nor do I think, that you're a "bad person".  The impression I get from your words is you'd rather dismiss me as a liberal.

I'll talk to you again in 2016.  I want to stay positive and I find that difficult to do since you are saying I'm either don't read carely or I'm lying.

Merry Christmas.


----------



## Dhara

ISIS wants us to not befriend Syrian refugees.  They want to kill Syrian refugees or turn them into jihadists.  Trump's rhetoric is a great terrorist recruiting tool.

The history of the U.S. refugee program demonstrates that the lengthy and extensive vetting that all refugees must undergo is an effective deterrent for terrorists. Since 1980, the U.S. has invited in millions of refugees, including hundreds of thousands from the Middle East. Not one has committed an act of terrorism in the U.S.

All of the 9/11 hijackers used student or tourist visas, not refugee status.*  ISIS sees Syrian refugees as traitors.*

Don't we want to befriend ISIS enemies?  These are our potential allies against Assad and ISIS.


----------



## thanatos144

Dhara said:


> ISIS wants us to not befriend Syrian refugees.  They want to kill Syrian refugees or turn them into jihadists.  Trump's rhetoric is a great terrorist recruiting tool.
> 
> The history of the U.S. refugee program demonstrates that the lengthy and extensive vetting that all refugees must undergo is an effective deterrent for terrorists. Since 1980, the U.S. has invited in millions of refugees, including hundreds of thousands from the Middle East. Not one has committed an act of terrorism in the U.S.
> 
> All of the 9/11 hijackers used student or tourist visas, not refugee status.


Your presidents own fbi director said it was impossible to vet these refugees. ..

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## PK1

ChrisL said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my perusals of the forums, I've  never seen so much pathological hatred towards Conservatives. But then, American partisan divisions have reached an all time high. What happened to the "heal the world" mantra espoused by Barack Obama?
> 
> Where are all the old style Democrats who  seem to have disappeared into the ether? Such as Kennedy, who could become a hawk when needed. Or Clinton, who was prepared to move to the centre, when expedient.
> 
> Present day liberals bear no relation to Democrats, IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I would say present day conservatives bear no relation to previous generation Republicans.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*Liberalism*"
> As mentioned earlier (post 2950), the USA was founded on this ideology.
> Can any *conservative* justify their contrarian position without exposing their hypocrisy, greed, and intolerance?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
> This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees
> 
> We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who you want to blame.  I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever.  I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros.  Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> _"I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever."_
> 
> That sounds really *COLD.*
> :-(
> 
> Not very Christian-like, and i'm not even religious. Just have *empathy*.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is part of our problem.  Bleeding hearts.  You don't make policy based on what "feels good."  You make policy based on what is BEST for your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> What's best for a country, and Earth collectively, is what "feels good" overall ... among ALL participants in this GLOBAL economy of ours nowadays.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  We have limited resources, as I explained earlier in the thread.
Click to expand...

---
Yes, i understand resources are limited, esp for the 95% who live outside the USA and consume only 5% of Earth's resources (is that stat still accurate?).
Perhaps USA can be more equitable or charitable among the world community?
.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dhara said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't characterized anybody as jihadists and neither I nor my kids are prejudiced in any way toward Muslims.  I am just not so stupid that I try to pretend that jihadists don't exist or that they would not pose as legitimate refugees in order to have opportunity to commit chaos, mayhem, and murder here.  Please tell me how you tell the difference between a legitimate refugee and a jihadist and maybe you'll have a reasonable argument.  And how much are you willing to put your own kids at risk?  Or is just the rest of us who must be willing to put our families at unnecessary risk in order to be considered 'unprejudiced' or 'inhumane'?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  You continue to call anyone who doesn't agree with you, "stupid".  That's too bad.  We just see what will help our country differently.  I know terrorists exist, I just don't think that all the people fleeing Syria are "jihadists".
> 
> My kids are as important to me as breath.  That doesn't mean I think reactionary politics on immigration policy keeps our country safer.
> 
> I think conservatives are wrong on this one.  Scrapping the Syrian refugee plan propsed by President Obama would be giving ISIS precisely what it wants.
> 
> Any Syrian refugees we accept will be carefully screened in order to make sure they’re legitimate. If anyone from ISIS were to find a way to get into the United States, it certainly wouldn’t be by trying to sneak in through a carefully monitored refugee program; there would be other less difficult ways they’d try first.
> 
> If you want to have a courteous conversation about this topic, I'd advise you to not calling your debate opponents "stupid".
> 
> It's your choice, of course.  All I can do is state my preferences and tell you how limited my time is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If somebody is willing to invite terrorists to have opportunity to maim or murder his loved ones, then yes, I don't agree with that because I think it is pretty stupid.  So I guess I agree with you that those who don't agree with me about that are stupid about that.  And by declaring me discourteous about that, can I assume that you don't believe Jihadists exist?  How much are you willing to risk your own family?   But if that disqualifies me from having a courteous conversation with you, oh well.  How many of your posts have suggested that those who think like me are hard hearted, bigoted, prejudiced uncompassionate, unempathetic, etc. etc. etc.?  I suppose that is more courteous?  Do have a pleasant evening and a great holiday season Dhara.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You equate all Syrian refugees as terrorists, I don't.  I haven't called you any of these names, "hard hearted, bigoted, prejudiced uncompassionate, unempathetic" or "stupid".  I don't think you're a "bad person".
> 
> We just think differently on this issue.  Can you live with that?  I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't live quietly with those who mischaracterize what I say.   Such as you saying that I equate all Syrian refugees as terrorists which suggests you either don't read carefully or you are deliberately lying about what I have said.  I will give you benefit of the doubt that you don't read carefully.
> 
> But that is definitely one reason a lot of us have a huge problem with liberalism is that it MUST mischaracterize the arguments of those who oppose it in order to have any credubility at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foxfyre.  It is you who says that we should not welcome Syrian refugees due to security concerns.  That suggests to me that you think Syrians, more than any other refugees, are more likely to be terrorists.  Now if you think that, then I would say your position suggests that  you are adversely prejudiced against Syrian refugees.  You think they are more likely to be terrorists.
> 
> I haven't called you names.  I have not said you are, "hard hearted, bigoted, prejudiced uncompassionate, unempathetic" or "stupid".  I haven't said, nor do I think, that you're a "bad person".  The impression I get from your words is you'd rather dismiss me as a liberal.
> 
> I'll talk to you again in 2016.  I want to stay positive and I find that difficult to do since you are saying I'm either don't read carely or I'm lying.
> 
> Merry Christmas.
Click to expand...


Again you are mischaracterizing and misstating what I have said on the subject.  So either quote me accurately IN CONTEXT, meaning you include my complete argument, or please do not address me at all because you discredit yourself when you mischaracterize your opponent in order to try to make points in a debate.  I have no problem with those who don't agree with what I say and respect anybody who can competently make an argument in rebuttal to my own argument.  I have a HUGE problem with those who make up something that I said so that they will have a sensible argument at all.


----------



## Dhara

Syrian refugees invited to celebrate Christmas eve with Winnipeg family


----------



## Dhara

"We have a proud tradition of being a friendly and hospitable nation".

'Warm Welsh welcome' for Syrian refugees at Christmas - BBC News


----------



## thanatos144

Dhara said:


> Syrian refugees invited to celebrate Christmas eve with Winnipeg family


So that means you can guarantee none of them are terrorist plants? How do you know this?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

Progressives apparently want another terrorist attack.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst

thanatos144 said:


> Progressives apparently want another terrorist attack.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


Assumes facts not in evidence, generally a sign of ignorance and mental inferiority. Only brazen idiots equate love of neighbor with support of terrorists.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

Statistikhengst said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives apparently want another terrorist attack.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Assumes facts not in evidence, generally a sign of ignorance and mental inferiority. Only brazen idiots equate love of neighbor with support of terrorists.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Facts are in evidence since you progressives want all these refugees from terrorist controlled countries.  Only conclusion is that progressives want a terrorist attack.  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## American_Jihad

I wonder what happened to my buddy from Helstinki, I hope the islamics didn't throw him in da street...


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> Progressives apparently want another terrorist attack.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk




Progressives want the end of the Constitutional Republic.

Their alliance with Islamic terror is just a means to an end.


----------



## American_Jihad

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives apparently want another terrorist attack.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives want the end of the Constitutional Republic.
> 
> Their alliance with Islamic terror is just a means to an end.
Click to expand...

But they don't realize it's also their end and a for sure end to the lgbt community...


----------



## Uncensored2008

American_Jihad said:


> But they don't realize it's also their end and a for sure end to the lgbt community...



Leftist logic is that without a contingent of traitors hampering our efforts, the Muslims will be easy to defeat. Since it is they who are the traitors, once they have power it will be no big deal to crush Islam.


----------



## American_Jihad

*25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals*
John Hawkins | May 11, 2013






...


Liberals view themselves as good people because they're liberals. People who are outside of that ugly little bit of circular reasoning don't have such a benign view of their horrible behavior. So, what reason could you have to dislike liberals?

1) Only liberals would be cruel enough to pick on kids running lemonade stands with a permit, children putting on Christmas plays at school and the Boy Scouts.

2) Because the closest thing to Sodom and Gomorrah in the modern world is San Francisco and Berkeley.

3) Whether you're talking about cop killers, terrorists, radical Islamists or dictators, all you have to do is say, "I hate America," and liberals start to sympathize with you.

4) Liberals are actually bothered by people who do love America. On the rare occasion when you do see a liberal waving a flag, look for a camera.

5) The same people who voted Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama into office think they're smarter than tradition, the Founding Fathers and God Himself.

6) Liberals might not want to admit it, but the world would have been a better place if Mary Jo Kopechne had crawled up out of that car instead of Ted Kennedy.

7) Only an ass could like Bill Maher, Alan Grayson or Sheila Jackson Lee.

8) Liberals believe in taking money from people who earn it, handing it out as bribes in order to get more power and then using that power to hurt the people that are giving them money.


9) The same liberal who'll laugh at a rape joke about Sarah Palin and then attack Michele Bachmann's family will then turn around and accuse someone else of being sexist for respectfully noting that a woman is attractive.

10) Liberals view hooking people on welfare and food stamps as a core part of their election strategy, which is terrible for the country, shows they have no character and requires more than a little hatred for poor people.

11) The dumbest, most close-minded and mean spirited people in all of politics are inevitably liberals who are convinced they're brilliant, open-minded and compassionate because they call themselves liberals.

12) A policy that makes liberals feel superior and caring that doesn't work and wastes billions is considered a smashing success because they genuinely DON'T CARE WHETHER THEIR POLICIES ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE OR NOT.

13) The same liberal who pretends to be angry about Susan Smith or Casey Anthony will then turn around and give the thumbs up to women who do the same thing to their children via abortion.

14) There's a reason why the average homeschooled kid gets a better education than he would in a public school run by liberals. It's because the kid's parents are interested in educating him while his liberal teachers view public schools as just another way to indoctrinate children.

15) Noam Chomsky is an America-hating creep and to think of him as some kind of genius, you have to both despise our country enough to suspend your disbelief and be largely ignorant of world history.

16) Anyone whose first reaction after a terrorist attack is, "Why do they hate us?" is just an intolerable douche.

17) Liberals talk up Hillary Clinton as the most prominent and important female politician in America; yet her entire political career is based on the fact that she married Bill Clinton. That's actually kind of pathetic.

18) Liberals have been big supporters of slavery, Indian massacres, the KKK, eugenics, fascism, communism and Jim Crow laws. Then, down the road, after liberals finally join everyone else, they try to claim that conservatives still support all the practices that we fought liberals on from the beginning.

19) Liberals think black Americans are inferior to whites, which is why the worst, most crime-ridden places to live in America are inevitably run by liberals. That's acceptable to liberals because they don't think black Americans deserve any better.

20) A liberal is more likely to support a man who murders a cop like Mumia Abu Jamal than cops who want to regularly patrol a bad neighborhood in force to keep the criminals from terrorizing the innocent people who live there.

21) The average middle aged Tea Partier who's going to rallies, talking about the Constitution and calling for reduced spending cares more about "the children" than 99% of the liberals out there who demand that we support one stupid program after the other "for the children."

22) You have to be a horrible human being to be okay with terrorists like Bill Ayers teaching kids at a college.

23) Because liberals are unable to ever admit they're wrong, they systematically ruin and destroy everything they become involved with and then either point the finger elsewhere or demand even more government involvement to fix the problems they created.

24) Detroit – and, yes, liberals did that.

25) Even "liberal Christians" are generally supportive of other liberals who attack Christianity, which is why "liberal Christians" is in quotes.

- 25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Heck, I like liberals, myself.

That's why I hate 95% of the authoritarian leftists who call themselves liberals, but are anything but. 

 Any moron who defends the ultra conservatism inherent in Islam is not a liberal. They are just a useful idiot.


----------



## Unkotare

American_Jihad said:


> *25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals*
> John Hawkins | May 11, 2013
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Liberals view themselves as good people because they're liberals. People who are outside of that ugly little bit of circular reasoning don't have such a benign view of their horrible behavior. So, what reason could you have to dislike liberals?
> 
> 1) Only liberals would be cruel enough to pick on kids running lemonade stands with a permit, children putting on Christmas plays at school and the Boy Scouts.
> 
> 2) Because the closest thing to Sodom and Gomorrah in the modern world is San Francisco and Berkeley.
> 
> 3) Whether you're talking about cop killers, terrorists, radical Islamists or dictators, all you have to do is say, "I hate America," and liberals start to sympathize with you.
> 
> 4) Liberals are actually bothered by people who do love America. On the rare occasion when you do see a liberal waving a flag, look for a camera.
> 
> 5) The same people who voted Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama into office think they're smarter than tradition, the Founding Fathers and God Himself.
> 
> 6) Liberals might not want to admit it, but the world would have been a better place if Mary Jo Kopechne had crawled up out of that car instead of Ted Kennedy.
> 
> 7) Only an ass could like Bill Maher, Alan Grayson or Sheila Jackson Lee.
> 
> 8) Liberals believe in taking money from people who earn it, handing it out as bribes in order to get more power and then using that power to hurt the people that are giving them money.
> 
> 
> 9) The same liberal who'll laugh at a rape joke about Sarah Palin and then attack Michele Bachmann's family will then turn around and accuse someone else of being sexist for respectfully noting that a woman is attractive.
> 
> 10) Liberals view hooking people on welfare and food stamps as a core part of their election strategy, which is terrible for the country, shows they have no character and requires more than a little hatred for poor people.
> 
> 11) The dumbest, most close-minded and mean spirited people in all of politics are inevitably liberals who are convinced they're brilliant, open-minded and compassionate because they call themselves liberals.
> 
> 12) A policy that makes liberals feel superior and caring that doesn't work and wastes billions is considered a smashing success because they genuinely DON'T CARE WHETHER THEIR POLICIES ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE OR NOT.
> 
> 13) The same liberal who pretends to be angry about Susan Smith or Casey Anthony will then turn around and give the thumbs up to women who do the same thing to their children via abortion.
> 
> 14) There's a reason why the average homeschooled kid gets a better education than he would in a public school run by liberals. It's because the kid's parents are interested in educating him while his liberal teachers view public schools as just another way to indoctrinate children.
> 
> 15) Noam Chomsky is an America-hating creep and to think of him as some kind of genius, you have to both despise our country enough to suspend your disbelief and be largely ignorant of world history.
> 
> 16) Anyone whose first reaction after a terrorist attack is, "Why do they hate us?" is just an intolerable douche.
> 
> 17) Liberals talk up Hillary Clinton as the most prominent and important female politician in America; yet her entire political career is based on the fact that she married Bill Clinton. That's actually kind of pathetic.
> 
> 18) Liberals have been big supporters of slavery, Indian massacres, the KKK, eugenics, fascism, communism and Jim Crow laws. Then, down the road, after liberals finally join everyone else, they try to claim that conservatives still support all the practices that we fought liberals on from the beginning.
> 
> 19) Liberals think black Americans are inferior to whites, which is why the worst, most crime-ridden places to live in America are inevitably run by liberals. That's acceptable to liberals because they don't think black Americans deserve any better.
> 
> 20) A liberal is more likely to support a man who murders a cop like Mumia Abu Jamal than cops who want to regularly patrol a bad neighborhood in force to keep the criminals from terrorizing the innocent people who live there.
> 
> 21) The average middle aged Tea Partier who's going to rallies, talking about the Constitution and calling for reduced spending cares more about "the children" than 99% of the liberals out there who demand that we support one stupid program after the other "for the children."
> 
> 22) You have to be a horrible human being to be okay with terrorists like Bill Ayers teaching kids at a college.
> 
> 23) Because liberals are unable to ever admit they're wrong, they systematically ruin and destroy everything they become involved with and then either point the finger elsewhere or demand even more government involvement to fix the problems they created.
> 
> 24) Detroit – and, yes, liberals did that.
> 
> 25) Even "liberal Christians" are generally supportive of other liberals who attack Christianity, which is why "liberal Christians" is in quotes.
> 
> - 25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals







You are wrong in assuming all teachers are liberals, or interested in indoctrination.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Unkotare said:


> You are wrong in assuming all teachers are liberals, or interested in indoctrination.



Never say never.

All teachers may not be leftists, but the vast majority are. And the major universities offering liberal arts programs are the most left-leaning in the nation. You come out of Berkeley with a BA in Educational Arts and chances are you will believe Karl Marx had the answers to life.


----------



## American_Jihad

Unkotare said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals*
> John Hawkins | May 11, 2013
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Liberals view themselves as good people because they're liberals. People who are outside of that ugly little bit of circular reasoning don't have such a benign view of their horrible behavior. So, what reason could you have to dislike liberals?
> 
> 1) Only liberals would be cruel enough to pick on kids running lemonade stands with a permit, children putting on Christmas plays at school and the Boy Scouts.
> 
> 2) Because the closest thing to Sodom and Gomorrah in the modern world is San Francisco and Berkeley.
> 
> 3) Whether you're talking about cop killers, terrorists, radical Islamists or dictators, all you have to do is say, "I hate America," and liberals start to sympathize with you.
> 
> 4) Liberals are actually bothered by people who do love America. On the rare occasion when you do see a liberal waving a flag, look for a camera.
> 
> 5) The same people who voted Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama into office think they're smarter than tradition, the Founding Fathers and God Himself.
> 
> 6) Liberals might not want to admit it, but the world would have been a better place if Mary Jo Kopechne had crawled up out of that car instead of Ted Kennedy.
> 
> 7) Only an ass could like Bill Maher, Alan Grayson or Sheila Jackson Lee.
> 
> 8) Liberals believe in taking money from people who earn it, handing it out as bribes in order to get more power and then using that power to hurt the people that are giving them money.
> 
> 
> 9) The same liberal who'll laugh at a rape joke about Sarah Palin and then attack Michele Bachmann's family will then turn around and accuse someone else of being sexist for respectfully noting that a woman is attractive.
> 
> 10) Liberals view hooking people on welfare and food stamps as a core part of their election strategy, which is terrible for the country, shows they have no character and requires more than a little hatred for poor people.
> 
> 11) The dumbest, most close-minded and mean spirited people in all of politics are inevitably liberals who are convinced they're brilliant, open-minded and compassionate because they call themselves liberals.
> 
> 12) A policy that makes liberals feel superior and caring that doesn't work and wastes billions is considered a smashing success because they genuinely DON'T CARE WHETHER THEIR POLICIES ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE OR NOT.
> 
> 13) The same liberal who pretends to be angry about Susan Smith or Casey Anthony will then turn around and give the thumbs up to women who do the same thing to their children via abortion.
> 
> 14) There's a reason why the average homeschooled kid gets a better education than he would in a public school run by liberals. It's because the kid's parents are interested in educating him while his liberal teachers view public schools as just another way to indoctrinate children.
> 
> 15) Noam Chomsky is an America-hating creep and to think of him as some kind of genius, you have to both despise our country enough to suspend your disbelief and be largely ignorant of world history.
> 
> 16) Anyone whose first reaction after a terrorist attack is, "Why do they hate us?" is just an intolerable douche.
> 
> 17) Liberals talk up Hillary Clinton as the most prominent and important female politician in America; yet her entire political career is based on the fact that she married Bill Clinton. That's actually kind of pathetic.
> 
> 18) Liberals have been big supporters of slavery, Indian massacres, the KKK, eugenics, fascism, communism and Jim Crow laws. Then, down the road, after liberals finally join everyone else, they try to claim that conservatives still support all the practices that we fought liberals on from the beginning.
> 
> 19) Liberals think black Americans are inferior to whites, which is why the worst, most crime-ridden places to live in America are inevitably run by liberals. That's acceptable to liberals because they don't think black Americans deserve any better.
> 
> 20) A liberal is more likely to support a man who murders a cop like Mumia Abu Jamal than cops who want to regularly patrol a bad neighborhood in force to keep the criminals from terrorizing the innocent people who live there.
> 
> 21) The average middle aged Tea Partier who's going to rallies, talking about the Constitution and calling for reduced spending cares more about "the children" than 99% of the liberals out there who demand that we support one stupid program after the other "for the children."
> 
> 22) You have to be a horrible human being to be okay with terrorists like Bill Ayers teaching kids at a college.
> 
> 23) Because liberals are unable to ever admit they're wrong, they systematically ruin and destroy everything they become involved with and then either point the finger elsewhere or demand even more government involvement to fix the problems they created.
> 
> 24) Detroit – and, yes, liberals did that.
> 
> 25) Even "liberal Christians" are generally supportive of other liberals who attack Christianity, which is why "liberal Christians" is in quotes.
> 
> - 25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong in assuming all teachers are liberals, or interested in indoctrination.
Click to expand...

Majority...


----------



## francoHFW

Only on the planet RW propaganda bubble. Time for more tin foil...


----------



## Uncensored2008

francoHFW said:


> Only on the planet RW propaganda bubble. Time for more tin foil...



Franco hater dupe bot, put down the crack pipe; you're incoherent.


----------



## francoHFW

You're right, most HS teachers are communists lol....


----------



## Uncensored2008

francoHFW said:


> You're right, most HS teachers are communists lol....



Say Franco hater dupe bot, you claim to have an MA in history (though you have no knowledge of history outside of Zinn's utter perversion.) You leveraged this to gain your position as night clerk at the Motel 6. Would you say that you're indicative of the politics of most who have underwater basket weaving degrees such as yours? Since there is no practical application, does that lead to the fantasy of leftism?


----------



## Unkotare

Uncensored2008 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, most HS teachers are communists lol....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say Franco hater dupe bot, you claim to have an MA in history ....?
Click to expand...



You don't actually believe that, do you?


----------



## francoHFW

Dems don't need to lie.


----------



## Unkotare

francoHFW said:


> Dems don't need to lie.




That's like saying they don't need to breathe.


----------



## American_Jihad

francoHFW said:


> Only on the planet RW propaganda bubble. Time for more tin foil...


Sorry but the left wing AH's cornered the market on that...







...


----------



## ChrisL

Because people are basically selfish and unless they can get to a "higher plane" then they cannot reconcile differences and/or be accepting of those differences of opinion.  They've never reached the "critical thinking" point in their lives.  Hey, some people (a LOT of people) never reach that plane.


----------



## francoHFW

"People" being brainwashed, totally misinformed hater dupes...


----------



## American_Jihad

francoHFW said:


> "People" being brainwashed, totally misinformed hater dupes...


For once your right about demorats...


----------



## Dale Smith

I am very justified in my disdain for liberals. They are really Fabian socialists in disguise...at least their leaders are. They do not believe in personal rights if it gets in the way of collectivism. The global elites haven't had a more willing group of dupes than liberals when it comes to their goal of creating a one world communist government. Every major movement that has torn away at the very fabric of this country, the tearing down of the family and morality has a liberal signature all over it. I could do a two hour lecture on this and write a book. Woodrow Wilson and FDR, two liberal socialists sold us out to the global elites in ways that some people wouldn't even be able to wrap their minds around. None of the presidents have been worth a shit except for JFK but those two in particular were sorry bastards of the highest order. Why do I hate liberals? Let me count the ways.....


----------



## francoHFW

hater dupes of the greedy idiot rich GOP...sigh.


----------



## Dale Smith

francoHFW said:


> hater dupes of the greedy idiot rich GOP...sigh.


 Not a fan of the neocons either....try again.


----------



## HUGGY

Much of the vitriol and name calling can be attributed to Newt Gingrich.  He made it a point to paint his opposition as evil and god hating.  He convinced his colleagues to go out of their way to at every discussion with his political adversaries to regard them in bad terms.  Where there used to be a mutual respect in congress it was transformed into a war of philosophies that took no prisoners. 

Every disagreement was transformed into an affront to all that they believed in and respected.  God, Guns and Gays was expanded to include abortion, immigration and socialism as the evil that attacks the model the RWers envision for our nation.  Obviously much if not all of the obsticals to this so called perfect vision were inherently unattainable due to the constitution.  They have to be careful attacking the constitution so when prevented from exercising their will they conveniently blame the so called "Liberals" for blocking their paths.  Keep in mind that the language in use now is much more derogatory that in previous times.  Once convinced that they no longer needed to respect those that oppose their agendas the insults fly freely. 

The emergence of Trump is the end result of the way the RW operates.  Insults that used to not exist were allowed to become veiled then open and now there are no constraints.  There are no mutual laws to respect in addressing one's opposition.

All this anger and insult combined with a RW culture that rejects any and all responsibility for their actions has created a field and a game without rules.  Politics has been reduced not to agreement and bargaining to create action but to only a matter of money spent on advertising.  If you party's backers can fund a won election and as a group win enough of them to have majorities and power then your opponent be damned.  Eventually it works both ways when the rules are clear.  The dems have to do the same to win elections as the public seems to only respond to the lowest common denominator. 

Now, as opposed to before when cordiality seemed the basis for winning an argument, it is the most clever and repeated insult that the public responds to.  True or false seems not to matter.  Nasty and degrading is what the public wants and what the public gets. 

Newt Gingrich may have had a big hand in setting the vitriol into motion but it is now the public that demands more dirt being slung by our politicians.  The real cause of the evil way our representatives communicate is that we do not say no to it at the ballot box.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Unkotare said:


> You don't actually believe that, do you?



I don't even believe he is a human.

I am convinced he is an artificial stupidity routine embedded in malware from the Soros hate sites.


----------



## Uncensored2008

francoHFW said:


> Dems don't need to lie.



Like alcoholics don't need to drink..


----------



## Uncensored2008

HUGGY said:


> Much of the vitriol and name calling can be attributed to Newt Gingrich.  He made it a point to paint his opposition as evil and god hating.  He convinced his colleagues to go out of their way to at every discussion with his political adversaries to regard them in bad terms.  Where there used to be a mutual respect in congress it was transformed into a war of philosophies that took no prisoners.
> 
> Every disagreement was transformed into an affront to all that they believed in and respected.  God, Guns and Gays was expanded to include abortion, immigration and socialism as the evil that attacks the model the RWers envision for our nation.  Obviously much if not all of the obsticals to this so called perfect vision were inherently unattainable due to the constitution.  They have to be careful attacking the constitution so when prevented from exercising their will they conveniently blame the so called "Liberals" for blocking their paths.  Keep in mind that the language in use now is much more derogatory that in previous times.  Once convinced that they no longer needed to respect those that oppose their agendas the insults fly freely.
> 
> The emergence of Trump is the end result of the way the RW operates.  Insults that used to not exist were allowed to become veiled then open and now there are no constraints.  There are no mutual laws to respect in addressing one's opposition.
> 
> All this anger and insult combined with a RW culture that rejects any and all responsibility for their actions has created a field and a game without rules.  Politics has been reduced not to agreement and bargaining to create action but to only a matter of money spent on advertising.  If you party's backers can fund a won election and as a group win enough of them to have majorities and power then your opponent be damned.  Eventually it works both ways when the rules are clear.  The dems have to do the same to win elections as the public seems to only respond to the lowest common denominator.
> 
> Now, as opposed to before when cordiality seemed the basis for winning an argument, it is the most clever and repeated insult that the public responds to.  True or false seems not to matter.  Nasty and degrading is what the public wants and what the public gets.
> 
> Newt Gingrich may have had a big hand in setting the vitriol into motion but it is now the public that demands more dirt being slung by our politicians.  The real cause of the evil way our representatives communicate is that we do not say no to it at the ballot box.



Yeah, because you Communists were always so polite.

I mean, that Atom Bomb commercial you ran on Goldwater was the epitome of class and decorum, Comrade.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much of the vitriol and name calling can be attributed to Newt Gingrich.  He made it a point to paint his opposition as evil and god hating.  He convinced his colleagues to go out of their way to at every discussion with his political adversaries to regard them in bad terms.  Where there used to be a mutual respect in congress it was transformed into a war of philosophies that took no prisoners.
> 
> Every disagreement was transformed into an affront to all that they believed in and respected.  God, Guns and Gays was expanded to include abortion, immigration and socialism as the evil that attacks the model the RWers envision for our nation.  Obviously much if not all of the obsticals to this so called perfect vision were inherently unattainable due to the constitution.  They have to be careful attacking the constitution so when prevented from exercising their will they conveniently blame the so called "Liberals" for blocking their paths.  Keep in mind that the language in use now is much more derogatory that in previous times.  Once convinced that they no longer needed to respect those that oppose their agendas the insults fly freely.
> 
> The emergence of Trump is the end result of the way the RW operates.  Insults that used to not exist were allowed to become veiled then open and now there are no constraints.  There are no mutual laws to respect in addressing one's opposition.
> 
> All this anger and insult combined with a RW culture that rejects any and all responsibility for their actions has created a field and a game without rules.  Politics has been reduced not to agreement and bargaining to create action but to only a matter of money spent on advertising.  If you party's backers can fund a won election and as a group win enough of them to have majorities and power then your opponent be damned.  Eventually it works both ways when the rules are clear.  The dems have to do the same to win elections as the public seems to only respond to the lowest common denominator.
> 
> Now, as opposed to before when cordiality seemed the basis for winning an argument, it is the most clever and repeated insult that the public responds to.  True or false seems not to matter.  Nasty and degrading is what the public wants and what the public gets.
> 
> Newt Gingrich may have had a big hand in setting the vitriol into motion but it is now the public that demands more dirt being slung by our politicians.  The real cause of the evil way our representatives communicate is that we do not say no to it at the ballot box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because you Communists were always so polite.
> 
> I mean, that Atom Bomb commercial you ran on Goldwater was the epitome of class and decorum, Comrade.
Click to expand...


Is everyone who disagrees with YOU a commie?  Lol.  Get over your 1950s mentality, please.


----------



## francoHFW

Uncensored2008 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dems don't need to lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like alcoholics don't need to drink..
Click to expand...

Give me one then, dupe. All at LEAST debatable. Meanwhile, everything you dupes know are whoppers lol.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Is everyone who disagrees with YOU a commie?  Lol.  Get over your 1950s mentality, please.



Why should I play pretend? 

A Communist is an advocate of a collectivist, central authority which revokes individual liberty in favor of group privilege granted on the basis of how favored that group is by the party. 

Sound familiar?


----------



## Uncensored2008

francoHFW said:


> Give me one then, dupe. All at LEAST debatable. Meanwhile, everything you dupes know are whoppers lol.



Give you one what, franco hater dupe bot? 

Why don't you put on your blue dress and watch an internet video while I play you a cut of Hilliary saying no one died when she and Obama put Al Qaeda in power in Libya?


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is everyone who disagrees with YOU a commie?  Lol.  Get over your 1950s mentality, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I play pretend?
> 
> A Communist is an advocate of a collectivist, central authority which revokes individual liberty in favor of group privilege granted on the basis of how favored that group is by the party.
> 
> Sound familiar?
Click to expand...


Your party also wants to take away rights.  Lol.  Wake up!!!


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Your party also wants to take away rights.  Lol.  Wake up!!!



My party does huh?

Examples?


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your party also wants to take away rights.  Lol.  Wake up!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My party does huh?
> 
> Examples?
Click to expand...


You don't know?


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your party also wants to take away rights.  Lol.  Wake up!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My party does huh?
> 
> Examples?
Click to expand...


Come on, you people are all the same, except on opposite sides.  Still the same.


----------



## francoHFW

Uncensored2008 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me one then, dupe. All at LEAST debatable. Meanwhile, everything you dupes know are whoppers lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give you one what, franco hater dupe bot?
> 
> Why don't you put on your blue dress and watch an internet video while I play you a cut of Hilliary saying no one died when she and Obama put Al Qaeda in power in Libya?
Click to expand...

One Dem lie duh. ONE. WTF ARE you talking about lol...


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> You don't know?



Are you drinking?


----------



## ChrisL

Overbearing, controlling, intrusive.  Both parties.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you drinking?
Click to expand...


Are you?  You're the one screaming "commie" at everyone.  Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?  Perhaps not.  SMH.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Come on, you people are all the same, except on opposite sides.  Still the same.



Put the crack pipe down, you are fully incoherent.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, you people are all the same, except on opposite sides.  Still the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put the crack pipe down, you are fully incoherent.
Click to expand...


Not at all, you are just as intrusive, overbearing and controlling as the other side.  Full of hate, greed and intolerance.


----------



## Uncensored2008

francoHFW said:


> One Dem lie duh. ONE. WTF ARE you talking about lol...



There were three rather famous ones in my reply, bot.

But only for the sentient.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Not at all, you are just as intrusive, overbearing and controlling as the other side.  Full of hate, greed and intolerance.



So, utter stupidity is the best I can expect from you?

No wonder you stick to the flame zone, you can't hack it out here with the grownups.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, you are just as intrusive, overbearing and controlling as the other side.  Full of hate, greed and intolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, utter stupidity is the best I can expect from you?
> 
> No wonder you stick to the flame zone, you can't hack it out here with the grownups.
Click to expand...


Sure.  I stick to the Flamer Zone.  Lol.  More lies.  That is expected from people such as yourself though, hateful, intolerant, dishonest, and ignorant.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, you are just as intrusive, overbearing and controlling as the other side.  Full of hate, greed and intolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, utter stupidity is the best I can expect from you?
> 
> No wonder you stick to the flame zone, you can't hack it out here with the grownups.
Click to expand...


I suppose now you're going to try to tell me I'm on drugs or drunk (although I do neither, unlike yourself probably)??    That's clever.


----------



## HUGGY

Uncensored2008 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much of the vitriol and name calling can be attributed to Newt Gingrich.  He made it a point to paint his opposition as evil and god hating.  He convinced his colleagues to go out of their way to at every discussion with his political adversaries to regard them in bad terms.  Where there used to be a mutual respect in congress it was transformed into a war of philosophies that took no prisoners.
> 
> Every disagreement was transformed into an affront to all that they believed in and respected.  God, Guns and Gays was expanded to include abortion, immigration and socialism as the evil that attacks the model the RWers envision for our nation.  Obviously much if not all of the obsticals to this so called perfect vision were inherently unattainable due to the constitution.  They have to be careful attacking the constitution so when prevented from exercising their will they conveniently blame the so called "Liberals" for blocking their paths.  Keep in mind that the language in use now is much more derogatory that in previous times.  Once convinced that they no longer needed to respect those that oppose their agendas the insults fly freely.
> 
> The emergence of Trump is the end result of the way the RW operates.  Insults that used to not exist were allowed to become veiled then open and now there are no constraints.  There are no mutual laws to respect in addressing one's opposition.
> 
> All this anger and insult combined with a RW culture that rejects any and all responsibility for their actions has created a field and a game without rules.  Politics has been reduced not to agreement and bargaining to create action but to only a matter of money spent on advertising.  If you party's backers can fund a won election and as a group win enough of them to have majorities and power then your opponent be damned.  Eventually it works both ways when the rules are clear.  The dems have to do the same to win elections as the public seems to only respond to the lowest common denominator.
> 
> Now, as opposed to before when cordiality seemed the basis for winning an argument, it is the most clever and repeated insult that the public responds to.  True or false seems not to matter.  Nasty and degrading is what the public wants and what the public gets.
> 
> Newt Gingrich may have had a big hand in setting the vitriol into motion but it is now the public that demands more dirt being slung by our politicians.  The real cause of the evil way our representatives communicate is that we do not say no to it at the ballot box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because you Communists were always so polite.
> 
> I mean, that Atom Bomb commercial you ran on Goldwater was the epitome of class and decorum, Comrade.
Click to expand...


You are a full blown idiot.  I have said MANY times on this MB that I was a strong SUPPORTER of Barry Goldwater.

I started to lose my faith in the GOP with Nixon's "trust me I have a secret plan to get us out of Viet Nam". 

As the Christofascists began infiltrating the republican party and taking more and more power I became less and less a fan.  That two faced Reagan idiot movie actor was the last straw.  Including Ronnie and his control agent Nancy there have been no respectable GOP candidates for POTUS.  Who knew the brains behind the scenes was Nancy's astrologer.

You and your parrot butt buddies that are so sure I am a leftistcommunistliberalpinkowhatever can go fuck yourselves.

I have made it clear for almost 7 years here that I am a DEVOUT atheist.  I can not in good conscience vote for any more presidents that are too stupid to understand there is no god.  I did vote for Bush I and Bush II.  I deeply regret those votes.

Now the GOP is in full retard putting on a clown show every four years.  It is embarrassing for a once proud republican.  It is an insult to this country.

Lastly I would appreciate you and your ilk stop using Goldwater's name for any reason.  You have no business trying to align yourselves with him.  He was a great man...whereas you are scum.


----------



## ChrisL

People are so stupid.  They don't realize that this is how the parties keep control over us.  Divide and conquer.


----------



## ChrisL

Divide and Conquer: Politics and the Left/Right Fraud  : The Corbett Report

From education to the environment, business to banking, housing to health care, it seems that there is no issue in the world that the industrialized western democracies cannot reduce to a simplistic paradigm of “liberal” vs “conservative.” In fact, this point has been so hardwired into the modern political system that it has been distilled into a childlike shorthand: political positions are “left” or “right,” “blue” or “red.” These convenient, color-coded political choices infantilize the political process, making the public little more than spectators at a sporting event, rooting for one team or another without even having to understand the issues being debated.

Nowhere has this process of simplification become so refined as it has in the United States of America, sometimes laughingly referred to as the “leaders of the free world.”

This inane lowest-common-denominator reduction of all political thought has taken its toll on the public. Many are now unable to conceive of what a political movement that is not attached to one or the other ends of this so-called “spectrum” would look like. Yet, interestingly, this is precisely what has emerged in the past several years, not once, but twice, and not on one side of this left/right divide or the other, but both.

In the past five years we have watched the rise of two distinct movements expressing popular outrage at the political status quo in the US. Both movements decried the nexus of power that has developed in the fascistic relationship of big banks and big government. Both movements believed that the bought-and-paid for politicians have robbed the people of their rights and even their ability to participate in the political process. Both movements believed in mass protest as a way of effecting change in the system. And yet, we are asked to believe that these movements are not only incompatible, but diametrically opposed.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Are you?  You're the one screaming "commie" at everyone.  Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?  Perhaps not.  SMH.



I realize that there are those who fear to name reality.  

Call them democratic - socialists as they call themselves, or demagogue - sociopaths as is more accurate. Call them Bolsheviks as a nod to the foundation of their economic and social goals.

No matter what the name, these are autocratic collectivists hostile to individual liberty. 

Your erudite response of "Nuhn UHN - yoooo tooooo" not withstanding...


----------



## francoHFW

Uncensored2008 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> One Dem lie duh. ONE. WTF ARE you talking about lol...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were three rather famous ones in my reply, bot.
> 
> But only for the sentient.
Click to expand...

Total BS you mean lol...


----------



## ChrisL

*The Founding Fathers Tried to Warn Us About the Threat From a Two-Party System*
Posted on July 7, 2011 by WashingtonsBlog


Polls show that a majority of Americans say that both the Republicans and Democrats are doing such a poor job representing the people that a new, third party is needed.

I’ve repeatedly warned that there is a scripted, psuedo-war between Dems and Repubs, liberals and conservatives which is in reality a false divide-and-conquer dog-and-pony show created by the powers that be to keep the American people divided and distracted. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this,this and this.

In fact, the Founding Fathers warned us about the threat from a two party system.

John Adams said:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

George Washington agreed, saying in his farewell presidential speech:



The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you?  You're the one screaming "commie" at everyone.  Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?  Perhaps not.  SMH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that there are those who fear to name reality.
> 
> Call them democratic - socialists as they call themselves, or demagogue - sociopaths as is more accurate. Call them Bolsheviks as a nod to the foundation of their economic and social goals.
> 
> No matter what the name, these are autocratic collectivists hostile to individual liberty.
> 
> Your erudite response of "Nuhn UHN - yoooo tooooo" not withstanding...
Click to expand...


Sorry, but that is just the truth.  Both of your parties are awful and are responsible for all the division and infighting we see today.  No arguing against that truth, is there?  Are you going to call me a "crackhead" again now?  Typical ignorance.


----------



## francoHFW

ChrisL said:


> Divide and Conquer: Politics and the Left/Right Fraud  : The Corbett Report
> 
> From education to the environment, business to banking, housing to health care, it seems that there is no issue in the world that the industrialized western democracies cannot reduce to a simplistic paradigm of “liberal” vs “conservative.” In fact, this point has been so hardwired into the modern political system that it has been distilled into a childlike shorthand: political positions are “left” or “right,” “blue” or “red.” These convenient, color-coded political choices infantilize the political process, making the public little more than spectators at a sporting event, rooting for one team or another without even having to understand the issues being debated.
> 
> Nowhere has this process of simplification become so refined as it has in the United States of America, sometimes laughingly referred to as the “leaders of the free world.”
> 
> This inane lowest-common-denominator reduction of all political thought has taken its toll on the public. Many are now unable to conceive of what a political movement that is not attached to one or the other ends of this so-called “spectrum” would look like. Yet, interestingly, this is precisely what has emerged in the past several years, not once, but twice, and not on one side of this left/right divide or the other, but both.
> 
> In the past five years we have watched the rise of two distinct movements expressing popular outrage at the political status quo in the US. Both movements decried the nexus of power that has developed in the fascistic relationship of big banks and big government. Both movements believed that the bought-and-paid for politicians have robbed the people of their rights and even their ability to participate in the political process. Both movements believed in mass protest as a way of effecting change in the system. And yet, we are asked to believe that these movements are not only incompatible, but diametrically opposed.


The difference is the New BS GOP lies nonstop and is bought and paid for by greedy idiot billionaires  and populated by ignorant ugly American racist dupes.......


----------



## ChrisL

francoHFW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Divide and Conquer: Politics and the Left/Right Fraud  : The Corbett Report
> 
> From education to the environment, business to banking, housing to health care, it seems that there is no issue in the world that the industrialized western democracies cannot reduce to a simplistic paradigm of “liberal” vs “conservative.” In fact, this point has been so hardwired into the modern political system that it has been distilled into a childlike shorthand: political positions are “left” or “right,” “blue” or “red.” These convenient, color-coded political choices infantilize the political process, making the public little more than spectators at a sporting event, rooting for one team or another without even having to understand the issues being debated.
> 
> Nowhere has this process of simplification become so refined as it has in the United States of America, sometimes laughingly referred to as the “leaders of the free world.”
> 
> This inane lowest-common-denominator reduction of all political thought has taken its toll on the public. Many are now unable to conceive of what a political movement that is not attached to one or the other ends of this so-called “spectrum” would look like. Yet, interestingly, this is precisely what has emerged in the past several years, not once, but twice, and not on one side of this left/right divide or the other, but both.
> 
> In the past five years we have watched the rise of two distinct movements expressing popular outrage at the political status quo in the US. Both movements decried the nexus of power that has developed in the fascistic relationship of big banks and big government. Both movements believed that the bought-and-paid for politicians have robbed the people of their rights and even their ability to participate in the political process. Both movements believed in mass protest as a way of effecting change in the system. And yet, we are asked to believe that these movements are not only incompatible, but diametrically opposed.
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is the New BS GOP lies nonstop and is bought and paid for by greedy idiot billionaires  and populated by ignorant ugly American racist dupes.......
Click to expand...


They ALL lie.  All of them.  The politicians are laughing at us.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Not at all, you are just as intrusive, overbearing and controlling as the other side.  Full of hate, greed and intolerance.



So what you're saying is that I'm a pub hater dupe, and you'll never phere me?


----------



## francoHFW

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you?  You're the one screaming "commie" at everyone.  Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?  Perhaps not.  SMH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that there are those who fear to name reality.
> 
> Call them democratic - socialists as they call themselves, or demagogue - sociopaths as is more accurate. Call them Bolsheviks as a nod to the foundation of their economic and social goals.
> 
> No matter what the name, these are autocratic collectivists hostile to individual liberty.
> 
> Your erudite response of "Nuhn UHN - yoooo tooooo" not withstanding...
Click to expand...

So who's against individual liberties like abortion choice, pot, gay marriage, etc etc etc? And no, Dems aren't against hunting and reasonable self-protection, dupe.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, you are just as intrusive, overbearing and controlling as the other side.  Full of hate, greed and intolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that I'm a pub hater dupe, and you'll never phere me?
Click to expand...


Oh yes, just the intelligent and well thought out post I was expecting.  You forgot commie and crackhead though.    Lol.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Sure.  I stick to the Flamer Zone.  Lol.  More lies.  That is expected from people such as yourself though, hateful, intolerant, dishonest, and ignorant.



Generally the only place I run into you.

We'll you're here now to join forces with franco.

You make such a cute couple....


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I stick to the Flamer Zone.  Lol.  More lies.  That is expected from people such as yourself though, hateful, intolerant, dishonest, and ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Generally the only place I run into you.
> 
> We'll you're here now to join forces with franco.
> 
> You make such a cute couple....
Click to expand...


I'm neither liberal or conservative, like I've already explained to you.  Didn't think it was that difficult of a concept to understand.  I suppose when you're a feeble-minded follower . . . .


----------



## francoHFW

ChrisL said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Divide and Conquer: Politics and the Left/Right Fraud  : The Corbett Report
> 
> From education to the environment, business to banking, housing to health care, it seems that there is no issue in the world that the industrialized western democracies cannot reduce to a simplistic paradigm of “liberal” vs “conservative.” In fact, this point has been so hardwired into the modern political system that it has been distilled into a childlike shorthand: political positions are “left” or “right,” “blue” or “red.” These convenient, color-coded political choices infantilize the political process, making the public little more than spectators at a sporting event, rooting for one team or another without even having to understand the issues being debated.
> 
> Nowhere has this process of simplification become so refined as it has in the United States of America, sometimes laughingly referred to as the “leaders of the free world.”
> 
> This inane lowest-common-denominator reduction of all political thought has taken its toll on the public. Many are now unable to conceive of what a political movement that is not attached to one or the other ends of this so-called “spectrum” would look like. Yet, interestingly, this is precisely what has emerged in the past several years, not once, but twice, and not on one side of this left/right divide or the other, but both.
> 
> In the past five years we have watched the rise of two distinct movements expressing popular outrage at the political status quo in the US. Both movements decried the nexus of power that has developed in the fascistic relationship of big banks and big government. Both movements believed that the bought-and-paid for politicians have robbed the people of their rights and even their ability to participate in the political process. Both movements believed in mass protest as a way of effecting change in the system. And yet, we are asked to believe that these movements are not only incompatible, but diametrically opposed.
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is the New BS GOP lies nonstop and is bought and paid for by greedy idiot billionaires  and populated by ignorant ugly American racist dupes.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They ALL lie.  All of them.  The politicians are laughing at us.
Click to expand...

Well that was easy. Another Pub dupe. Feel the Bern and stop listening to 25 years of lies about the Clintons. The more you listen to the GOP Propaganda Machine, the less you know.


----------



## Uncensored2008

francoHFW said:


> So who's against individual liberties like abortion choice, pot, gay marriage, etc etc etc? And no, Dems aren't against hunting and reasonable self-protection, dupe.



The ability to take the life of a distinct and separate entity is not individual liberty, bot.

Oh and franco hater dupe bot, check under my avie and you might gaing a clue as to my position on pot, probably not though, you're not a sentient being. The war your filthy party wages on civil rights is unprecedented. Not since your filthy party went to war to keep other people as slaves has there been such blatant assaults on personal freedom.


----------



## francoHFW

Uncensored2008 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who's against individual liberties like abortion choice, pot, gay marriage, etc etc etc? And no, Dems aren't against hunting and reasonable self-protection, dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ability to take the life of a distinct and separate entity is not individual liberty, bot.
> 
> Oh and franco hater dupe bot, check under my avie and you might gaing a clue as to my position on pot, probably not though, you're not a sentient being. The war your filthy party wages on civil rights is unprecedented. Not since your filthy party went to war to keep other people as slaves has there been such blatant assaults on personal freedom.
Click to expand...

Most people don't believe your ideological bs about abortion, fascist, or the SC or congress, dupe.. lol. The very definition of cutting individual liberties...


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> I'm neither liberal or conservative,



Nor apparently sober... 



> like I've already explained to you.  Didn't think it was that difficult of a concept to understand.  I suppose when you're a feeble-minded follower . . . .



The concept that you have no foundational principles nor a philosophical grounding? No, I think I picked up on that.


----------



## Uncensored2008

francoHFW said:


> Most people don't believe your ideological bs about abortion, fascist. lol. The very definition of cutting individual liberties...



But then you're not a person; just a bit of malware, poorly written code that runs an artificial stupidity routine...


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm neither liberal or conservative,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor apparently sober... :eusa_whistle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> like I've already explained to you.  Didn't think it was that difficult of a concept to understand.  I suppose when you're a feeble-minded follower . . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The concept that you have no foundational principles nor a philosophical grounding? No, I think I picked up on that.
Click to expand...


Again with the accusations of drug use?  Good grief.  

I have principles.  They just aren't republican or democratic "principles" which are fake principles that they don't even hold to. Lol.  You are just another follower.  Nothing new or interesting to see here.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people don't believe your ideological bs about abortion, fascist. lol. The very definition of cutting individual liberties...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then you're not a person; just a bit of malware, poorly written code that runs an artificial stupidity routine...
Click to expand...


You are the same, except on the other side of the spectrum.  Just sayin.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I stick to the Flamer Zone.  Lol.  More lies.  That is expected from people such as yourself though, hateful, intolerant, dishonest, and ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Generally the only place I run into you.
> 
> We'll you're here now to join forces with franco.
> 
> You make such a cute couple....
Click to expand...


I don't remember "running into you" in the Flamer Zone since I rarely post there.


----------



## Uncensored2008

HUGGY said:


> You are a full blown idiot.  I have said MANY times on this MB that I was a strong SUPPORTER of Barry Goldwater.



Well of course, just like Jake Starkey you are a "Republican" that sees the wisdom of Obama's collectivism!



> I started to lose my faith in the GOP with Nixon's "trust me I have a secret plan to get us out of Viet Nam".
> 
> As the Christofascists began infiltrating the republican party and taking more and more power I became less and less a fan.  That two faced Reagan idiot movie actor was the last straw.  Including Ronnie and his control agent Nancy there have been no respectable GOP candidates for POTUS.  Who knew the brains behind the scenes was Nancy's astrologer.
> 
> You and your parrot butt buddies that are so sure I am a leftistcommunistliberalpinkowhatever can go fuck yourselves.
> 
> I have made it clear for almost 7 years here that I am a DEVOUT atheist.  I can not in good conscience vote for any more presidents that are too stupid to understand there is no god.  I did vote for Bush I and Bush II.  I deeply regret those votes.
> 
> Now the GOP is in full retard putting on a clown show every four years.  It is embarrassing for a once proud republican.  It is an insult to this country.
> 
> Lastly I would appreciate you and your ilk stop using Goldwater's name for any reason.  You have no business trying to align yourselves with him.  He was a great man...whereas you are scum.



Honestly, between a leaf in the gutter and what you would appreciate, I have to go with the leaf for priority of importance.

So, as a Christophobic bigot, you will reject Hlliary, and Trump because both are Christian? 

I'll remind you of this when you post your praise of Hilliary in the not too distant future.


----------



## Ernie S.

Uncensored2008 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only on the planet RW propaganda bubble. Time for more tin foil...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Franco hater dupe bot, put down the crack pipe; you're incoherent.
Click to expand...

As usual.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Again with the accusations of drug use?  Good grief.
> 
> I have principles.  They just aren't republican or democratic "principles" which are fake principles that they don't even hold to. Lol.  You are just another follower.  Nothing new or interesting to see here.



What are these alleged "principles" that you hold.

Oh, and since I am a "follower," would you mind terrible telling me what it is you think that I follow?


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again with the accusations of drug use?  Good grief.
> 
> I have principles.  They just aren't republican or democratic "principles" which are fake principles that they don't even hold to. Lol.  You are just another follower.  Nothing new or interesting to see here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are these alleged "principles" that you hold.
> 
> Oh, and since I am a "follower," would you mind terrible telling me what it is you think that I follow?
Click to expand...


I get it.  You think that anyone that does not agree with you has no principles.  Lol.  

I want to help the poor.  I have integrity.  I'm honest.  I have much compassion for those who are truly suffering.  There are just a few of my principles.  What are YOUR principles?  

You follow the republican party, lockstep.  Silly little person.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> You are the same, except on the other side of the spectrum.  Just sayin.



You seem to be "sayin" for no reason than to see your words on screen.

Occasionally I have had conversations with you where you seemed somewhat reasonable; not today though, you are putting up your vacuous dolt persona.

Hint; the delusion you have assigned to me has very little to do with my actual positions.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the same, except on the other side of the spectrum.  Just sayin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be "sayin" for no reason than to see your words on screen.
> 
> Occasionally I have had conversations with you where you seemed somewhat reasonable; not today though, you are putting up your vacuous dolt persona.
> 
> Hint; the delusion you have assigned to me has very little to do with my actual positions.
Click to expand...


What have I said that is unreasonable to you?  That both parties are the same but on opposite sides of the spectrum?  That their goal is to divide and conquer and that is how they maintain power and control?  What?  Be specific please.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the same, except on the other side of the spectrum.  Just sayin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be "sayin" for no reason than to see your words on screen.
> 
> Occasionally I have had conversations with you where you seemed somewhat reasonable; not today though, you are putting up your vacuous dolt persona.
> 
> Hint; the delusion you have assigned to me has very little to do with my actual positions.
Click to expand...


And . . . what are YOUR principles?


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> I get it.  You think that anyone that does not agree with you has no principles.  Lol.



Oh hardly. I think some of the hard core left have very strong principles. That of collectivism and group privilege.

Populists though, eschew principle as a matter of course.



> I want to help the poor.



Do you then? Or does charity begin in the pocket of your neighbor?




> I have integrity.  I'm honest.  I have much compassion for those who are truly suffering.  There are just a few of my principles.  What are YOUR principles?



Well since you asked...

I believe that each person is endowed by whatever force placed us on this planet with a natural state of liberty. Liberty cannot be granted, only subverted. Because we are sentient beings who are free in our natural state, the measure of integrity is the measure of the respect each has for the liberty of others.

Do not kill, maim, injure, nor cause to be injured, others. Do not use the threats of violence to compel others to act against their own interests. Do not steal or take by force or the threat thereof.

Compassion is the measure of one person helping another. Taking bread from the mouth of your neighbor  by force to give to those you think are more deserving is not compassion, it is theft. Charity can only come from your own assets, not those of others.

All civil rights are founded upon property rights. Without the right to that which we create from our minds and our effort, there can be no rights at all.

The most noble and civilized manner in which one person can relate to another is through trade, the voluntary and uncoerced exchange of value for value.




> You follow the republican party, lockstep.  Silly little person.



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it.  You think that anyone that does not agree with you has no principles.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh hardly. I think some of the hard core left have very strong principles. That of collectivism and group privilege.
> 
> Populists though, eschew principle as a matter of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to help the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you then? Or does charity begin in the pocket of your neighbor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have integrity.  I'm honest.  I have much compassion for those who are truly suffering.  There are just a few of my principles.  What are YOUR principles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well since you asked...
> 
> I believe that each person is endowed by whatever force placed us on this planet with a natural state of liberty. Liberty cannot be granted, only subverted. Because we are sentient beings who are free in or natural state, the measure of integrity is the measure of the respect each has for the liberty of others.
> 
> Do not kill, maim, injure, nor cause to be injured, others. Do not use the threats of violence to compel others to act against their own interests. Do not steal or take by force or the threat thereof.
> 
> Compassion is the measure of one person helping another. Taking bread from the mouth of your neighbor  by force to give to those you think are more deserving is not compassion, it is theft. Charity can only come from your own assets, not those of others.
> 
> All civil rights are founded upon property rights. Without the right to that which we create from our minds and our effort, there can be no rights at all.
> 
> The most noble and civilized manner in which one person can relate to another is through trade, the voluntary and uncoerced exchange of value for value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You follow the republican party, lockstep.  Silly little person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...


What a bunch of crap.  Lol.  Yes, we need social support systems to which we all contribute to help the poor.  To say that they could survive on the "goodness" of people and charity is nothing short of ridiculous.  AND that is because of the parties and their politics, stagnant wages, and outright greed.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it.  You think that anyone that does not agree with you has no principles.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh hardly. I think some of the hard core left have very strong principles. That of collectivism and group privilege.
> 
> Populists though, eschew principle as a matter of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to help the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you then? Or does charity begin in the pocket of your neighbor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have integrity.  I'm honest.  I have much compassion for those who are truly suffering.  There are just a few of my principles.  What are YOUR principles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well since you asked...
> 
> I believe that each person is endowed by whatever force placed us on this planet with a natural state of liberty. Liberty cannot be granted, only subverted. Because we are sentient beings who are free in or natural state, the measure of integrity is the measure of the respect each has for the liberty of others.
> 
> Do not kill, maim, injure, nor cause to be injured, others. Do not use the threats of violence to compel others to act against their own interests. Do not steal or take by force or the threat thereof.
> 
> Compassion is the measure of one person helping another. Taking bread from the mouth of your neighbor  by force to give to those you think are more deserving is not compassion, it is theft. Charity can only come from your own assets, not those of others.
> 
> All civil rights are founded upon property rights. Without the right to that which we create from our minds and our effort, there can be no rights at all.
> 
> The most noble and civilized manner in which one person can relate to another is through trade, the voluntary and uncoerced exchange of value for value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You follow the republican party, lockstep.  Silly little person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...


Well, why don't you say just what you disagree with the republican party about.  Every post of yours sounds like typical republican drivel.


----------



## ChrisL

In order to have a healthy and robust citizenry, we need a combination of capitalism and socialism.  Just one or just the other is narrow minded and cannot work in the REAL world where there are over 300 MILLION people living in your country (those accounted for), and not NEARLY that many jobs to go around.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> [
> What have I said that is unreasonable to you?



Wrong question, what is it you have said that is reasoned?



> That both parties are the same but on opposite sides of the spectrum?  That their goal is to divide and conquer and that is how they maintain power and control?  What?  Be specific please.



You sound a bit paranoid, and perhaps delusional.

The Neocons are being displaced in the GOP, which I view as a good thing. Bummer that Trump is the one doing it. Hilliary is the biggest establishment crook ever to crawl out of the sewer. The little dance of 'they iz both da same" is simply retarded at this point.


----------



## ChrisL

If people don't have money to spend, they aren't buying.  Guess what that means for your businesses?    Around 35% of our citizens are now on SOME form of social services supports.  That means they fall BELOW the federal poverty guidelines.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> What have I said that is unreasonable to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong question, what is it you have said that is reasoned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That both parties are the same but on opposite sides of the spectrum?  That their goal is to divide and conquer and that is how they maintain power and control?  What?  Be specific please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound a bit paranoid, and perhaps delusional.
> 
> The Neocons are being displaced in the GOP, which I view as a good thing. Bummer that Trump is the one doing it. Hilliary is the biggest establishment crook ever to crawl out of the sewer. The little dance of 'they iz both da same" is simply retarded at this point.
Click to expand...


You are calling me paranoid?  You who screams "commie" in just about every post.  PUHLEESE.  You are just another ridiculous message board poster.    Lol.


----------



## Wry Catcher

People like Uncensored hate liberals out of fear.  He and others like him fear change, fear minorities, feat going out in public unarmed.  The question then open for discussion is why he and others like him are cowards?  Are cowards born scared, or is it a learned emotion?

Of course being below the line - not poverty, the line which puts them under the average IQ, the single digit set - have reason to be scared.  Competing in the world, the job market and school is to their disadvantage and thus they want to return to the days of yesteryear when a dumb white guy got the job and those in the protected class did not.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Well, why don't you say just what you disagree with the republican party about.  Every post of yours sounds like typical republican drivel.



I'm glad you spent so much time on a well thought out reply, so as to dispel my impression of you as a troll spewing partisan drivel.. 

Oh, I don't believe in victimless crimes. If there is no direct victim, there is no crime. Ergo, someone smoking a joint, or even crack, cannot be a criminal act.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> In order to have a healthy and robust citizenry, we need a combination of capitalism and socialism.



Of course, just as a robust diet needs a combination of poison and healthful foods.

Fucking brilliant.



> Just one or just the other is narrow minded and cannot work in the REAL world where there are over 300 MILLION people living in your country (those accounted for), and not NEARLY that many jobs to go around.



Which country do you live in?


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> In order to have a healthy and robust citizenry, we need a combination of capitalism and socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, just as a robust diet needs a combination of poison and healthful foods.
> 
> Fucking brilliant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just one or just the other is narrow minded and cannot work in the REAL world where there are over 300 MILLION people living in your country (those accounted for), and not NEARLY that many jobs to go around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which country do you live in?
Click to expand...


You don't make any sense at all.  You are just spewing hyperbole.  Lol.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> You are calling me paranoid?



Should I not have? Will the nefarious "they" that you rant about get me?



> You who screams "commie" in just about every post.  PUHLEESE.  You are just another ridiculous message board poster.    Lol.



LOL

Oh the irony.


----------



## ChrisL

Wry Catcher said:


> People like Uncensored hate liberals out of fear.  He and others like him fear change, fear minorities, feat going out in public unarmed.  The question then open for discussion is why he and others like him are cowards?  Are cowards born scared, or is it a learned emotion?
> 
> Of course being below the line - not poverty, the line which puts them under the average IQ, the single digit set - have reason to be scared.  Competing in the world, the job market and school is to their disadvantage and thus they want to return to the days of yesteryear when a dumb white guy got the job and those in the protected class did not.



Most of the people who post here are just like him!  He is typical of a message board poster.  An extremist.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are calling me paranoid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should I not have? Will the nefarious "they" that you rant about get me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You who screams "commie" in just about every post.  PUHLEESE.  You are just another ridiculous message board poster.    Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Oh the irony.
Click to expand...


Who is "they?"  Yes, you are the one calling people "commies" and other such things, right or wrong?  This is just another typical paranoid rant that you're on.  Sad for you.  I pity you.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wry Catcher said:


> People like Uncensored hate liberals out of fear.



I am a Liberal. You are a leftist. There is nothing even remotely liberal about your.



> He and others like him fear change, fear minorities, feat going out in public unarmed.



I'm sure glad you didn't stoop to utterly mindless stereotypes, Comrade. 



> The question then open for discussion is why he and others like him are cowards?  Are cowards born scared, or is it a learned emotion?



Well put that third grade education of yours to good use post an analysis, sploogy!



> Of course being below the line - not poverty, the line which puts them under the average IQ,



Well not all people can have that whopping 32 IQ that you so well display, sploogy,



> the single digit set - have reason to be scared.  Competing in the world, the job market and school is to their disadvantage and thus they want to return to the days of yesteryear when a dumb white guy got the job and those in the protected class did not.



Should it be illegal to hire white people? Or legal only if a company has proven that no illegals are waiting for the job and it can't be offshored to China or India?

LOL;

Wry, you again prove that you are one of the dumbest fuckers on the board.


----------



## Unkotare

ChrisL said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are calling me paranoid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should I not have? Will the nefarious "they" that you rant about get me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You who screams "commie" in just about every post.  PUHLEESE.  You are just another ridiculous message board poster.    Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Oh the irony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "they?"  Yes, you are the one calling people "commies" and other such things, right or wrong?  This is just another typical paranoid rant that you're on.  Sad for you.  I pity you.
Click to expand...



And would you consider him a fool?


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> You don't make any sense at all.



You lack the requisite intellect to grasp the point.

Understood, I will set the baseline accordingly.



> You are just spewing hyperbole.  Lol.





You seek to be the queen of irony, they?


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't make any sense at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lack the requisite intellect to grasp the point.
> 
> Understood, I will set the baseline accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just spewing hyperbole.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seek to be the queen of irony, they?
Click to expand...


???  You aren't making any points, except the one on top of your head!  Lol.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Most of the people who post here are just like him!  He is typical of a message board poster.  An extremist.



Well we can't all be so moderate as to see a sinister "they" controlling both parties...


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the people who post here are just like him!  He is typical of a message board poster.  An extremist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we can't all be so moderate as to see a sinister "they" controlling both parties...
Click to expand...


So you don't think the parties want to maintain control?  Lol.  Okay.  Commie!


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> ???  You aren't making any points, except the one on top of your head!  Lol.



Reduced to third grade banter?

Figures.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Who is "they?"  Yes, you are the one calling people "commies" and other such things, right or wrong?  This is just another typical paranoid rant that you're on.  Sad for you.  I pity you.



I speak honestly, something that offends that PC scum of the left, enticing me to speak ever more plainly.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> So you don't think the parties want to maintain control?  Lol.  Okay.  Commie!



I think you  are utterly out of your league and entirely incapable of presenting a rational and well thought out post.

I've offered you a dozen chances to engage in actual, reasoned discussion, and you have ducked them all.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think the parties want to maintain control?  Lol.  Okay.  Commie!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you  are utterly out of your league and entirely incapable of presenting a rational and well thought out post.
> 
> I've offered you a dozen chances to engage in actual, reasoned discussion, and you have ducked them all.
Click to expand...


Sorry buddy, you are the one who cannot have a reasoned discussion.  You make accusations of drug abuse, communism and all kinds of ridiculous accusations!


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Sorry buddy, you are the one who cannot have a reasoned discussion.



Yeah, I see that. You spent all that time detailing your political ideology and I ducked providing a rational response..

Oh wait, that was the other way around....



> You make accusations of drug abuse, communism and all kinds of ridiculous accusations!



If the foo shits...


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry buddy, you are the one who cannot have a reasoned discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I see that. You spent all that time detailing your political ideology and I ducked providing a rational response..
> 
> Oh wait, that was the other way around....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make accusations of drug abuse, communism and all kinds of ridiculous accusations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the foo shits...
Click to expand...


Don't you post at DP too?  How many forums are you a member at anyway?


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry buddy, you are the one who cannot have a reasoned discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I see that. You spent all that time detailing your political ideology and I ducked providing a rational response..
> 
> Oh wait, that was the other way around....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make accusations of drug abuse, communism and all kinds of ridiculous accusations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the foo shits...
Click to expand...


I thought I was pretty clear on my "ideology".  I don't have an ideology.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry buddy, you are the one who cannot have a reasoned discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I see that. You spent all that time detailing your political ideology and I ducked providing a rational response..
> 
> Oh wait, that was the other way around....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make accusations of drug abuse, communism and all kinds of ridiculous accusations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the foo shits...
Click to expand...


Raving loon commie is what you are!  Lol.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Don't you post at DP too?  How many forums are you a member at anyway?



Occasionally, and none of your business.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> I thought I was pretty clear on my "ideology".  I don't have an ideology.



You want to "help the poor."

you ducked on whether you actually DO help the poor, with your own time and funds, or if that is just the typical leftist euphemism for "I want to give your money to who I think deserves it more."


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Raving loon commie is what you are!  Lol.



Mindless leftist, incapable of anything more than posting hollow slogans.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Raving loon commie is what you are!  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindless leftist, incapable of anything more than posting hollow slogans.
Click to expand...


I'm imitating YOU, genius.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I was pretty clear on my "ideology".  I don't have an ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to "help the poor."
> 
> you ducked on whether you actually DO help the poor, with your own time and funds, or if that is just the typical leftist euphemism for "I want to give your money to who I think deserves it more."
Click to expand...


You didn't ask me that question, and yes I do.  My tax dollars go to help the poor.  I'm also on the verge of being poor, but you don't hear me bitching, do ya?


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I was pretty clear on my "ideology".  I don't have an ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to "help the poor."
> 
> you ducked on whether you actually DO help the poor, with your own time and funds, or if that is just the typical leftist euphemism for "I want to give your money to who I think deserves it more."
Click to expand...


Once your tax money is gathered.  It is no longer YOUR money.  It belongs to the collective "US"    That pisses you off, huh?


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> I'm imitating YOU, genius.  Lol.



No, you're sure not, regardless of your intent.

Look moron, this is the philosophy forum. Lay out your political philosophy, debate mine, or admit you are a drooling retard lacking the wits to engage in anything deeper than flinging poo.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you post at DP too?  How many forums are you a member at anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occasionally, and none of your business.
Click to expand...


So . . . this is what you do all day every day?  Going from forum to forum complaining about poor little you and commies?


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm imitating YOU, genius.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're sure not, regardless of your intent.
> 
> Look moron, this is the philosophy forum. Lay out your political philosophy, debate mine, or admit you are a drooling retard lacking the wits to engage in anything deeper than flinging poo.
Click to expand...


Yes, I'm imitating you.  That is the extent of your postings.  Commie!  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm imitating YOU, genius.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're sure not, regardless of your intent.
> 
> Look moron, this is the philosophy forum. Lay out your political philosophy, debate mine, or admit you are a drooling retard lacking the wits to engage in anything deeper than flinging poo.
Click to expand...


Oh, I forgot to add crack whore to that.  Crack whore!  There.  Now I sound just like you.


----------



## ChrisL

Commies!  They are infiltrating the United States!  Look out for the commies.  Bad commies, bad.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> You didn't ask me that question, and yes I do.  My tax dollars go to help the poor.  I'm also on the verge of being poor, but you don't hear me bitching, do ya?



Learn to read.

Why do people hate Liberals?

Tax dollars, extracted by force are not charity.

I am appalled at the hypocrites who speaking of helping the poor and think that robbing others is somehow noble.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't ask me that question, and yes I do.  My tax dollars go to help the poor.  I'm also on the verge of being poor, but you don't hear me bitching, do ya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn to read.
> 
> Why do people hate Liberals?
> 
> Tax dollars, extracted by force are not charity.
> 
> I am appalled at the hypocrites who speaking of helping the poor and think that robbing others is somehow noble.
Click to expand...


I pay my taxes voluntarily because I want my money to go to help the poor and NOT huge multi-billion dollar corporations.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Oh, I forgot to add crack whore to that.  Crack whore!  There.  Now I sound just like you.



You know how they told you that eating the paint would make you smarter? They lied....


----------



## ChrisL

I voluntarily pay taxes because I CARE about America and it's people.  All you have is GREED and misery.  I pity you.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> I pay my taxes voluntarily because I want my money to go to help the poor and NOT huge multi-billion dollar corporations.



Got it, so you take no deductions and send extra, right?

No?



The hypocrisy of the left is infinite...


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Once your tax money is gathered.  It is no longer YOUR money.  It belongs to the collective "US"    That pisses you off, huh?



Once money is taken in taxes, it belongs to the government, not you. 

You seem unclear on how this whole "reality" thingy works.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I forgot to add crack whore to that.  Crack whore!  There.  Now I sound just like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know how they told you that eating the paint would make you smarter? They lied....
Click to expand...


Well thankfully, I've never eaten paint, and I am VERY smart.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once your tax money is gathered.  It is no longer YOUR money.  It belongs to the collective "US"    That pisses you off, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once money is taken in taxes, it belongs to the government, not you.
> 
> You seem unclear on how this whole "reality" thingy works.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  Now you are getting it.  You pay taxes, and it goes to help out poor people.  You don't like that?  Oh well.  That is not going to change because you go on message boards and throw temper tantrums.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pay my taxes voluntarily because I want my money to go to help the poor and NOT huge multi-billion dollar corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, so you take no deductions and send extra, right?
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> The hypocrisy of the left is infinite...
Click to expand...


I don't have any "extra."    Yet, I don't moan and complain about it either.  That would be you and people like you who are greedy and not very good people.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pay my taxes voluntarily because I want my money to go to help the poor and NOT huge multi-billion dollar corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, so you take no deductions and send extra, right?
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> The hypocrisy of the left is infinite...
Click to expand...


So, let's get this clear.  You come on message boards and complain about commies "stealing" your money to help out some poor folks.  I say that I am all for our tax dollars helping out the poor folks, and I'm a hypocrite?  

I'm sorry, but you are just greedy.  Live with it.


----------



## ChrisL

OUR tax money, yep.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Exactly.  Now you are getting it.  You pay taxes, and it goes to help out poor people.  You don't like that?  Oh well.  That is not going to change because you go on message boards and throw temper tantrums.



If I want to help poor people, I help poor people. I don't cast a vote for some corrupt democrat and then pat myself on the back that they will rob the rich on my behalf to give other peoples money to those I think are more deserving.

So suffice to say, no YOU do not help the poor, you vote for higher taxes in hopes that money taken from others will help the poor.

Typical leftist, charity begins in the pocket of your neighbor.


----------



## ChrisL

Why people hate conservatives . . . 







Ebenezer: But it was only that you were an honest man of business!

Jacob Marley: BUSINESS? Mankind was my business! Their common welfare was my business!


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> OUR tax money, yep.



From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Dayum, why would ANYONE think you were a Communist?


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> OUR tax money, yep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
> 
> Dayum, why would ANYONE think you were a Communist?
Click to expand...


We all pay taxes and, like you noted, once it leaves your hands it no longer belongs to you.  It becomes OUR money at that point.  Some of it is going to be used to help out the poor folks.  You can cry about that all day long.  It isn't going to change because most people who are NOT extremists do not mind.


----------



## ChrisL

At least you don't claim to be a "Christian" because that would be just laughable.


----------



## ChrisL

You'll complain about your tax money going to help a family of four, yet you ignore this bullshit.  That's sick.  

10 Taxpayer Handouts to the Super Rich That Will Make Your Blood Boil

A small number of incredibly wealthy Americans are ridiculing Bernie Sanders’ base for wanting “free stuff” when the costliest programs are, by far, corporate welfare and entitlements for the top 1 percent. Fox News has been working hard to tear down Sanders’ proposals to provide Medicare for all, institute tuition-free public college, boost infrastructure spending, and expand Social Security.

“That’s not fiscally possible unless the federal government starts seizing private assets,” said Bill O’Reilly.

But O’Reilly is wrong. The money for Sanders’ platform can easily come from eliminating the costliest entitlement programs for the top 1 percent and multinational corporations. Here’s a breakdown of the most superfluous giveaways to the rich and how much they cost the rest of us:

*1. Tax Breaks for obscene CEO bonuses ($7 billion/year)*
Currently, the biggest corporations are exploiting a 20-year-old loophole that allows them to write off inflated compensation packages for CEOs, billing stock options, and performance-based bonuses to taxpayers. In 2010, the Economic Policy Institute found out that the biggest corporations cost Americans $7 billion by writing off inflated executive pay. Between 2007 and 2010, this loophole accounted for more than $30 billion in corporate welfare. According to _The Guardian_, fast food industry CEOs cost taxpayers $64 million through this loophole.

That $7 billion could singlehandedly fund the annual budget for the National Science Foundation — which, as I recently reported for US Uncut, funds 11,000 scientific research projects each year and has funded 26 Nobel laureates in the last 5 years.

*2. Tax cuts for luxury corporate jets ($300 million/year)*
Currently, corporations can claim a huge tax deduction every year by writing off purchases of corporate jets, lavish cars, and chauffeurs as “security” for their top executives. A Bloomberg analysis from 2011 showed that these tax breaks for some of the wealthiest Americans cost the rest of us$300 million each year. While that may not sound like much, that’s approximately 50 percent of theannual budget for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren that protects Americans from the financial sector’s most predatory schemes.

*3. Big oil subsidies ($37.5 billion/year)*
According to Oil Change International (OCI), the U.S. government spends anywhere between $10 billion and $52 billion per year on corporate welfare for the fossil fuel industry — one of the wealthiest industries in the world. OCI estimated that total combined subsidies to big oil approached $37.5 billion in 2014, which includes $21 billion on production and exploration subsidies.

These subsidies alone cost more than what we currently spend on providing rental assistance for low-income families. In 2013, the department of Housing and Urban Development allocated a total of$34.3 billion toward tenant-based rental assistance ($19 billion), project-based rental assistance ($8.7 billion), and general public housing programs ($6.6 billion). These programs helped 4.5 million families — half of whom are elderly — keep a roof over their head.

*4. Pharmaceutical subsidies ($270 billion/year)*
As US Uncut has previously reported, the pharmaceutical industry costs taxpayers roughly $270 billion a year when accounting for the cost we pay for life-saving drugs whose patents have been bought up by Big Pharma. This is over $1,914 per household in corporate welfare. This is partly due to the Medicare Part D bill that George W. Bush signed into law in 2003, which prevents Medicare from negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. But the biggest drug companies also make a pretty penny (a combined $711 billion in profits between 2003 and 2012) by buying patents for drugs that were largely developed with taxpayer-funded research, then jacking up the price by absurd amounts after cornering the market.


----------



## Wyatt earp

ChrisL said:


> OUR tax money, yep.




Define our tax money?



Example 

California gas tax is 40 cents a gallon not including local

Alaska is 12 cents a gallon not including local



.


----------



## ChrisL

Republicans need to purge their party of these old views and get with the times or they are going to lose it.  People recognize greed for what it is.  You can make all the excuses you want, but it comes down to one thing only . . . greed and selfishness. 

Republican Conservative Base Shrinks


----------



## ChrisL

bear513 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> OUR tax money, yep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define our tax money?
> 
> 
> 
> Example
> 
> California gas tax is 40 cents a gallon not including local
> 
> Alaska is 12 cents a gallon not including local
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Our tax money.  Once you pay your taxes, it then is no longer your money.  It belongs to all of us.  Some of it is going to help out the poor people.  Period.  End of story.


----------



## Wyatt earp

ChrisL said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> OUR tax money, yep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define our tax money?
> 
> 
> 
> Example
> 
> California gas tax is 40 cents a gallon not including local
> 
> Alaska is 12 cents a gallon not including local
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our tax money.  Once you pay your taxes, it then is no longer your money.  It belongs to all of us.  Some of it is going to help out the poor people.  Period.  End of story.
Click to expand...



Guess I am confusing you, who gets to decide what is OUR tax money?

Liberals in blue states who bought votes with empty promises to their non funded pension programs?


----------



## ChrisL

Republicans are outraged for all the wrong reasons.

This past Friday, $5 billion was automatically slashed from the federal food stamps program, affecting the lives of 47 million Americans.

The USDA estimates that because of these cuts, a family of four who receives food stamps benefits will lose about 20 meals per month.

But these enormous cuts to food stamps aren't enough for Republicans.

They still want to slash an additional $40 billion from the program in the name of reducing spending and federal debt.

Republicans love to argue that programs like SNAP - the federal food stamps program – and other social safety net programs put an unfair burden on American taxpayers, but if they just took a minute to crunch the numbers, they'd realize that's flat out wrong.

In 2012, the average American taxpayer making $50,000 per year paid just $36 towards the food stamps program.

That's just ten cents a day!

That's less than the cost of a gumball.

But Republicans think that's still too high a price to pay to help the neediest and most vulnerable Americans.

And when it comes to funding the rest of America's social safety net programs, the average American taxpayer making $50,000 a year pays just over six dollars a year.

Simply put, the American taxpayer isn't paying much for social safety net programs like food stamps and Medicare.

But we are paying a lot for the billions of dollars the U.S. government gives to corporate America each year.

The average American family pays a staggering $6,000 a year in subsidies to Republican-friendly big business.

And that's just the average family. A family making more than $50,000 a year - say $70,000 a year - pays even more to pad the wallets of corporate America.

So where does some of that $6,000 that you and I are paying every year actually go?

For starters, $870 of it goes to direct subsidies and grants for corporations.

This includes money for subsidies to Big Oil companies that are polluting our skies and fueling climate change and global warming. Compare that to the $36 you and I pay for food stamps a year.

An additional $870 goes to corporate tax subsidies.

The Tax Foundation has found that the "special tax provisions" of corporations cost taxpayers over $100 billion per year, or roughly $870 per family.

But in reality, that number is much higher.

Citizens for Tax Justice found that the U.S. Treasury lost $181 billion in corporate tax subsidies, which means the average American family could be out as much as $1,600 per year. 

Finally, of the $6,000 in corporate subsidies that the average American family pays each year, $1,231 of it goes to making up for revenue losses from corporate tax havens.

This money goes to recouping losses from giant transnational corporations like Apple and GE that hide their money overseas to boost profits and avoid paying taxes to help the American economy.

The bottom-line here is that American families are paying $6,000 or more per year to subsidize giant transnational corporations that are already making billions and billions of dollars in profit each year. In the past decade alone, corporations have doubled their profits.

Republicans on Capitol Hill keep suggesting that we can't afford to help the poor in this country, and they're wrong.

What we really can't afford is doling out $100 billion each year to corporations that don't need it.

That's where the real outrage and the real news coverage should be.


----------



## ChrisL

bear513 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> OUR tax money, yep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define our tax money?
> 
> 
> 
> Example
> 
> California gas tax is 40 cents a gallon not including local
> 
> Alaska is 12 cents a gallon not including local
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our tax money.  Once you pay your taxes, it then is no longer your money.  It belongs to all of us.  Some of it is going to help out the poor people.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Guess I am confusing you, who gets to decide what is OUR tax money?
> 
> Liberals in blue states who bought votes with empty promises to their non funded pension programs?
Click to expand...


The IRS.


----------



## ChrisL

God, I hate conservatives (most of them).


----------



## Wyatt earp

ChrisL said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> OUR tax money, yep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define our tax money?
> 
> 
> 
> Example
> 
> California gas tax is 40 cents a gallon not including local
> 
> Alaska is 12 cents a gallon not including local
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our tax money.  Once you pay your taxes, it then is no longer your money.  It belongs to all of us.  Some of it is going to help out the poor people.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Guess I am confusing you, who gets to decide what is OUR tax money?
> 
> Liberals in blue states who bought votes with empty promises to their non funded pension programs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The IRS.
Click to expand...



So you ok with people buying votes on lies?


----------



## ChrisL

bear513 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> OUR tax money, yep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define our tax money?
> 
> 
> 
> Example
> 
> California gas tax is 40 cents a gallon not including local
> 
> Alaska is 12 cents a gallon not including local
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our tax money.  Once you pay your taxes, it then is no longer your money.  It belongs to all of us.  Some of it is going to help out the poor people.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Guess I am confusing you, who gets to decide what is OUR tax money?
> 
> Liberals in blue states who bought votes with empty promises to their non funded pension programs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The IRS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you ok with people buying votes on lies?
Click to expand...


What in the hell are you babbling about?  We are talking about social service support systems versus corporate.  Helping the people versus helping the corporations who have left our wages stagnant for years and years, who use every loop hole at their disposal to avoid paying their employees a good and decent wage and even to provide them healthcare!  What's wrong with you people?  Keep it up.  Pretty soon we will ALL be poor unless you are a CEO for GE!


----------



## Wyatt earp

ChrisL said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define our tax money?
> 
> 
> 
> Example
> 
> California gas tax is 40 cents a gallon not including local
> 
> Alaska is 12 cents a gallon not including local
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our tax money.  Once you pay your taxes, it then is no longer your money.  It belongs to all of us.  Some of it is going to help out the poor people.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Guess I am confusing you, who gets to decide what is OUR tax money?
> 
> Liberals in blue states who bought votes with empty promises to their non funded pension programs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The IRS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you ok with people buying votes on lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the hell are you babbling about?  We are talking about social service support systems versus corporate.  Helping the people versus helping the corporations who have left our wages stagnant for years and years, who use every loop hole at their disposal to avoid paying their employees a good and decent wage and even to provide them healthcare!  What's wrong with you people?  Keep it up.  Pretty soon we will ALL be poor unless you are a CEO for GE!
Click to expand...



I thought I made it in simple enough terms for you.....



This reminds me of a funny story when the Illinois tollway authority got busted for having gold plated faucets in their bath rooms


Wonder if I can find that story from the 80s I think?


----------



## ChrisL

bear513 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our tax money.  Once you pay your taxes, it then is no longer your money.  It belongs to all of us.  Some of it is going to help out the poor people.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess I am confusing you, who gets to decide what is OUR tax money?
> 
> Liberals in blue states who bought votes with empty promises to their non funded pension programs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The IRS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you ok with people buying votes on lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the hell are you babbling about?  We are talking about social service support systems versus corporate.  Helping the people versus helping the corporations who have left our wages stagnant for years and years, who use every loop hole at their disposal to avoid paying their employees a good and decent wage and even to provide them healthcare!  What's wrong with you people?  Keep it up.  Pretty soon we will ALL be poor unless you are a CEO for GE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I made it in simple enough terms for you.....
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds me of a funny story when the Illinois tollway authority got busted for having gold plated faucets in their bath rooms
> 
> 
> Wonder if I can find that story from the 80s I think?
Click to expand...


You are way off topic.


----------



## Wyatt earp

ChrisL said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess I am confusing you, who gets to decide what is OUR tax money?
> 
> Liberals in blue states who bought votes with empty promises to their non funded pension programs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The IRS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you ok with people buying votes on lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the hell are you babbling about?  We are talking about social service support systems versus corporate.  Helping the people versus helping the corporations who have left our wages stagnant for years and years, who use every loop hole at their disposal to avoid paying their employees a good and decent wage and even to provide them healthcare!  What's wrong with you people?  Keep it up.  Pretty soon we will ALL be poor unless you are a CEO for GE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I made it in simple enough terms for you.....
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds me of a funny story when the Illinois tollway authority got busted for having gold plated faucets in their bath rooms
> 
> 
> Wonder if I can find that story from the 80s I think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are way off topic.
Click to expand...



Damn I am getting old the story is from 1976

*The Des Plaines Herald from Arlington Heights, Illinois · Page 41*
Newspapers.com - Historical Newspapers from 1700s-2000s › newspage
Mobile-friendly - May 13, 1976 - The Des Plaines Herald (Arlington Heights, Illinois), ... Downtown Chicago is accessible on the Northwest Tollway or Route 53. ... There are double bath vanities with 24k gold plated faucets....


No I am not off topic Chris... Well not by much... Lol


Fine I Will go argue some more with bones on the AGW cult....


----------



## ChrisL

bear513 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The IRS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you ok with people buying votes on lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the hell are you babbling about?  We are talking about social service support systems versus corporate.  Helping the people versus helping the corporations who have left our wages stagnant for years and years, who use every loop hole at their disposal to avoid paying their employees a good and decent wage and even to provide them healthcare!  What's wrong with you people?  Keep it up.  Pretty soon we will ALL be poor unless you are a CEO for GE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I made it in simple enough terms for you.....
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds me of a funny story when the Illinois tollway authority got busted for having gold plated faucets in their bath rooms
> 
> 
> Wonder if I can find that story from the 80s I think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are way off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Damn I am getting old the story is from 1976
> 
> *The Des Plaines Herald from Arlington Heights, Illinois · Page 41*
> Newspapers.com - Historical Newspapers from 1700s-2000s › newspage
> Mobile-friendly - May 13, 1976 - The Des Plaines Herald (Arlington Heights, Illinois), ... Downtown Chicago is accessible on the Northwest Tollway or Route 53. ... There are double bath vanities with 24k gold plated faucets....
> 
> 
> No I am not off topic Chris... Well not by much... Lol
> 
> 
> Fine I Will go argue some more with bones on the AGW cult....
Click to expand...


You are off topic though.    We were talking about social services and why we either support or do not support them.  I support them.  I don't mind at MOST $36 going towards helping out poor families to have shelter, food and clothing, etc.  I have a HUGE problem with a bigger share of the tax dollars going to CORPORATE welfare programs.

So, why don't you address that issue?


----------



## ChrisL

Robert Reich: Corporate Welfare Is Destroying Our Economy (VIDEO)

When corporations get special handouts from the government – subsidies and tax breaks – it costs you. It means you have to pay more in taxes to make up for these hidden expenses. And government has less money for good schools and roads, Medicare and national defense, and everything else you need.

You might call these special corporate handouts “corporate welfare,” but at least welfare goes to real people in need. In the big picture, corporate handouts are costing tens of billions of dollars a year. Some estimates put it over $100 billion – which means it’s costing you money that would otherwise go to better schools or roads, or lower taxes.

Conservatives have made a game of obscuring where federal spending actually goes. In reality, only about 12 percent of federal spending goes to individuals and families, most in dire need. An increasing portion goes to corporate welfare.

Other examples: The oil, gas, and coal industries get billions in their own special tax breaks. Big Agribusiness gets farm subsides. Big Pharma gets their own subsidy in the form of a ban on government using its bargaining power under Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices. And hedge-fund and private-equity managers get a special tax loophole that treats their income as capital gains, at a lower tax rate than ordinary income.

The real issue isn’t the government’s size. It’s whom government is for. Much of government is no longer working for the vast majority it’s intended to serve. If government were responding to the public’s interest instead of the moneyed interests, it would be providing more support for communities, families, and individuals who need it the most.

There’s no reason any corporations should be on the dole, or that your hard-earned dollars should be going to them for no reason but their political clout.

So we have to demand an end to corporate welfare. No more handouts to particular corporations and industries simply because they’re big enough and powerful enough to get them. No more specialized tax breaks. No more exemptions or special treatment. No more crony capitalism.


----------



## Wyatt earp

ChrisL said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you ok with people buying votes on lies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the hell are you babbling about?  We are talking about social service support systems versus corporate.  Helping the people versus helping the corporations who have left our wages stagnant for years and years, who use every loop hole at their disposal to avoid paying their employees a good and decent wage and even to provide them healthcare!  What's wrong with you people?  Keep it up.  Pretty soon we will ALL be poor unless you are a CEO for GE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I made it in simple enough terms for you.....
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds me of a funny story when the Illinois tollway authority got busted for having gold plated faucets in their bath rooms
> 
> 
> Wonder if I can find that story from the 80s I think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are way off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Damn I am getting old the story is from 1976
> 
> *The Des Plaines Herald from Arlington Heights, Illinois · Page 41*
> Newspapers.com - Historical Newspapers from 1700s-2000s › newspage
> Mobile-friendly - May 13, 1976 - The Des Plaines Herald (Arlington Heights, Illinois), ... Downtown Chicago is accessible on the Northwest Tollway or Route 53. ... There are double bath vanities with 24k gold plated faucets....
> 
> 
> No I am not off topic Chris... Well not by much... Lol
> 
> 
> Fine I Will go argue some more with bones on the AGW cult....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are off topic though.    We were talking about social services and why we either support or do not support them.  I support them.  I don't mind at MOST $36 going towards helping out poor families to have shelter, food and clothing, etc.  I have a HUGE problem with a bigger share of the tax dollars going to CORPORATE welfare programs.
> 
> So, why don't you address that issue?
Click to expand...



 I don't know because I support it?

Like I care, the tax money is not that much and there is no way to weed out the cheats effectively with the people who really needs it.

Besides, if you throw people a bone once and awhile it keeps most from looting and rioting .



.


----------



## ChrisL




----------



## ChrisL




----------



## ChrisL

Now, regarding the above, I'm not a global warming nut, but it's about the MONEY that we send to these HUGE multi billion dollar corporations in "welfare" while conservatives complain about helping out a mother and children for around $36 per year.  Disgusting.


----------



## ChrisL

So, the average middle class American pays an average of $36 a year to support SOCIAL services for the people, and then they pay an average of $6000 a year to pay for CORPORATE welfare.  Meanwhile, the businesses like WalFart tell us, "oh, we just cannot afford to pay our employees a living wage, guess they'll have to go collect social services."  

Does this not piss you off?


----------



## ChrisL

And let's not forget the other video I posted about all the "missing" TRILLIONS of dollars thanks to our government waste and poor accounting abilities, overpaying contractors, overpaying for everything.  Who do you think gets all of these government contracts?  The people who are lining their pockets, that's who!!!  Who is paying for this disaster?  WE the people!


----------



## ChrisL

Oh, so let's keep focusing on demonizing the poor people in our country who cannot afford to get an education, who cannot get jobs that will pay them a living wage, and so they HAVE to collect social services, but corporations are GOOD.  God damn, that is soooo fucked up.  People are fucking too damn stupid.  We have to start educating our people when they are children about this bullshit.  The politicians will just keep trying to divert our attention and will NEVER tell the truth about what is actually going on.  We are all the victims of this huge scam and it is all because of greed and selfishness, power and control.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> We all pay taxes and, like you noted, once it leaves your hands it no longer belongs to you.  It becomes OUR money at that point.  Some of it is going to be used to help out the poor folks.  You can cry about that all day long.  It isn't going to change because most people who are NOT extremists do not mind.



No Comrade, it doesn't. It is money of the government. If you want to test this, simply go take some of "our" money and see what happens.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Republicans need to purge their party of these old views and get with the times or they are going to lose it.  People recognize greed for what it is.  You can make all the excuses you want, but it comes down to one thing only . . . greed and selfishness.
> 
> Republican Conservative Base Shrinks




Oh, and adopt your ultra-modern views? 

{Das Kapital, published 1867}


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> God, I hate conservatives (most of them).



That's because you are a parasite.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> So, the average middle class American pays an average of $36 a year to support SOCIAL services for the people, and then they pay an average of $6000 a year to pay for CORPORATE welfare.  Meanwhile, the businesses like WalFart tell us, "oh, we just cannot afford to pay our employees a living wage, guess they'll have to go collect social services."
> 
> Does this not piss you off?




Comrade, can you definitively show even one dollar of federal money going to Walmart? No, I do not mean more videos from the Soros hate sites whining that low skilled workers get food stamps, that is shit brained demagoguery that only convinces utter retards.

I mean show me even $1 of corporate welfare going to Walmart?

You can't. The Hate Sites that do your thinking for you can't. 

But I can show you nearly a billion dollars going to Solyndra. I can show over $3 billion going to Elon Musk (Solar City. Tesla.) $400 billion to GM, Nissan, Toyota, and Hyundai.

The problem I have with leftist talking about "corporate welfare" is that you lie, especially those like you that reside on the bottom rungs of the intellectual ladder.

Oh I have a big problem with corporate welfare. such as the subsidies Obama gave to his good friend Jeffery Immelt to ship American jobs to China. What did you think the federal subsidies of the CFL actually do? Stop global warming (the religion of fucking retards)? No, if funded General Electric putting thousands of Americans out of work and building massive plants in China to build the CFL bulbs.

By the way, I don't know where you get your numbers, some leftist hate site no doubt. BUT I do know where your source got them, they made them up. 59% of the federal budget is spent on social programs.







Because my numbers are factual, I cite them.

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## mamooth

3.5 years later, and the same people are still raging at the liberals out of jealousy. How sad. Why can't they just lose their envy and move on?


----------



## ChrisL

Conservatives = brainwashed peons.


----------



## rdean

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


That's just your lack of education.  Typical for right wingers.


----------



## American_Jihad

*5 Ways to Turn a Liberal Into a Conservative (At Least Until the Hangover Sets In)*
By Guest Blogger | April 20, 2012 

...

Here is a list of five things that can make a liberal change his or her stripes:

*Distraction.* Several studies have shown that “cognitive load”—in other words, requiring people to do something that consumes most or all of their attention, like listening to a piece of music and noting how many tones come before each change in pitch—produces a conservative political shift.

In one study, for instance, liberal and conservative subjects were asked whether government health care should be extended to a hypothetical group of AIDS victims who were responsible for their own fates (they’d contracted the disease while knowing the risks, and having unprotected sex anyway). Liberals who were not under load—not distracted—wanted to help such people, despite the fact that they were personally responsible for their plight. But liberals under load were much more like conservatives, appearing to reason that this group of AIDS victims had gotten what they deserved. (Cognitive load did not appear to change the view of conservatives in the study.)

*Drunkenness.* Alcohol intoxication is not unlike cognitive load, in that it cuts down the capacity for in-depth, nuanced thinking, and privileges economical, quick responses. Sure enough, in a recent study of 85 bar patrons, blood alcohol content was related to increased political conservatism for liberals and conservatives alike.

The drinkers still knew whether they were liberal or conservative, of course. But when asked how much they agreed with a variety of statements of political principles—like, “Production and trade should be free of government interference”—higher blood alcohol content was associated with giving more conservative answers.

*Time Pressure.* In another study reported in the same paper, participants were asked how much they endorsed a variety of politically tinged words, like “authority” and “civil rights.” In one study condition, they had to see the term and respond to it in about 1.5 seconds; in the other condition, they had 4 seconds to do so. This made a political difference: Subjects under time pressure were more likely to endorse conservative terms.

*Cleanliness/Purity.* In another fascinating study, subjects who were asked political questions near a hand sanitizer, or asked to use a hand wipe before responding, also showed a rightward shift. In this case, political conservatism was being tied not to distraction, but rather, to disgust sensitivity—an emotional response to preserve bodily purity.

*Fear.* After 9/11, public support for President George W. Bush also immediately swelled. In fact, a study showed that Bush’s approval ratings increased whenever terror alert levels were issued by the Department of Homeland Security. Meanwhile, the phenomenon of “liberal hawks” who wanted to attack Iraq was much remarked upon. Why is that?

The answer seems to involve the amygdala, a region of the emotional brain that conditions our life-preserving responses to danger. Its activity seems to have political implications: When we’re deeply afraid, tough and decisive leaders are more appealing to us. So are militaristic and absolute responses, like going to war and the death penalty; things like civil liberties, meanwhile, matter less to us.

It is unlikely that all of the phenomena discussed above involve the same cognitive mechanism. For instance, disgust sensitivity is probably operating through a different part of the brain than fear sensitivity. Still, priming people to feel either fear or disgust (or the need for cleanliness) seems to favor political conservatism, and politically conservative candidates.

What all of this suggests is a pretty stunning conclusion: Maybe we’ve been thinking about political ideology in very much the wrong way. It seems to be at least partly rooted in things deeper and more primal than the policy issues of the day, and how we individually reason that we ought to handle them.

...

5 Ways to Turn a Liberal Into a Conservative (At Least Until the Hangover Sets In) - The Crux


----------



## American_Jihad

rdean said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> That's just your lack of education.  Typical for right wingers.
Click to expand...

RrrrrDean, what about your meth cousins in portland...




By the way SAIGON is a liberal from _Helstinki_...


----------



## ChrisL

I only dislike and disrespect the extremists from both sides, which are MANY on this forum.  Lol.  Very rare is it that you run into a "normal" person on these types of sites.  I don't know why I even come here.  Boredom I suppose.  I should find a better hobby.  I'm weary of all this silliness and ignorance.


----------



## Dhara

ChrisL said:


> I only dislike and disrespect the extremists from both sides, which are MANY on this forum.  Lol.  Very rare is it that you run into a "normal" person on these types of sites.  I don't know why I even come here.  Boredom I suppose.  I should find a better hobby.  I'm weary of all this silliness and ignorance.


Hey, there are some really good people here.  YOU are one of them.  If you want to me to tell you a bunch more I'll PM you.

Dhara


----------



## ChrisL

Dhara said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only dislike and disrespect the extremists from both sides, which are MANY on this forum.  Lol.  Very rare is it that you run into a "normal" person on these types of sites.  I don't know why I even come here.  Boredom I suppose.  I should find a better hobby.  I'm weary of all this silliness and ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, there are some really good people here.  YOU are one of them.  If you want to me to tell you a bunch more I'll PM you.
> 
> Dhara
Click to expand...


Lol.  I'm sure MANY people here would disagree with you.    I've had my own experiences here on this forum, and most of them haven't been "pleasant."  People who tend to be attracted to these kinds of fora are a bit crazy to begin with, IMO.  Lol.


----------



## Dhara

ChrisL said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only dislike and disrespect the extremists from both sides, which are MANY on this forum.  Lol.  Very rare is it that you run into a "normal" person on these types of sites.  I don't know why I even come here.  Boredom I suppose.  I should find a better hobby.  I'm weary of all this silliness and ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, there are some really good people here.  YOU are one of them.  If you want to me to tell you a bunch more I'll PM you.
> 
> Dhara
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  I'm sure MANY people here would disagree with you.    I've had my own experiences here on this forum, and most of them haven't been "pleasant."  People who tend to be attracted to these kinds of fora are a bit crazy to begin with, IMO.  Lol.
Click to expand...

Well, we've all got a habit to hang out with other most likely in leisure transition times.

It can get you down if you read too much "TROLL" and there are some people here who are downright toxic.  POISON.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Liberal Brainwashing in Public Schools*


*Radical Infiltration and Manipulation of Youth.*

~ If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves~

Abraham Lincoln

...


Government Agencies / Bureaucracies at all levels are heavily packed with indoctrinated left leaning manipulators, who in turn are for the most part indoctrinating more followers. School textbooks and curriculum is being written for the purpose of Leftist indoctrination, with the actual education of our youth playing second fiddle

The left leaning liberals have an agenda that has nothing to do with teaching children how to think and everything to do with teaching them what to think, or to think in politically correct terms by the official standards set forth by the Democratic party definitions. The possibility of reversing this trend is minuscule , but someway, somehow the education system has to be miraculously transformed if we are to survive and prosper once again. Lincoln once stated that America could never be destroyed from  outside .

...

Liberal Brainwashing in Public Schools


----------



## Yarddog

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.




Liberals DESPISE people they think are conservative.  Ever hear of the term fly over country?   Maybe some conservatives dont like what Liberals have done to our colleges?  instead of teaching people to get along, they want to teach that your a Racist if you were born white.  Other ridiculous things like that


----------



## Uncensored2008

Yarddog said:


> Liberals DESPISE people they think are conservative.  Ever hear of the term fly over country?   Maybe some conservatives dont like what Liberals have done to our colleges?  instead of teaching people to get along, they want to teach that your a Racist if you were born white.  Other ridiculous things like that



democrats hate.

democrats hate everything and everyone. They hate the living and detest the dead. They hate the rich and despise the poor. A democrats world view is based on what he hates. A "broad view" for a democrat simply means more hatred.

democrats are hate, the embodiment of hatred in the flesh.

If God is love, and democrats are hate, does that mean....


----------



## American_Jihad

*Why do people hate Liberals?*

Well after the election just look around. They call trump all those names and their the one's that act it out, typical fucking libtarts. Keep acting out and you'll get another 4 yrs of trump plus he has a lot of smart kids, ya never know it might end up a TRUMP DYNASTY...


----------



## peach174

Socialism in any form causes what we are seeing.
Give whats mine attitude, which causes this imoral and selfish behavior.
They are socially crippled by big government assistance programs.
Our founders warned of the consequences if we decided to go down that road.
Now we have a bunch of young adults acting like 5 year olds with temper tantrums because daddy is gonna cut off their credit cards.


----------



## boilermaker55

No, you are the fucktard.
"the donald" was the one that put this out there.
Big crybaby.




American_Jihad said:


> *Why do people hate Liberals?*
> 
> Well after the election just look around. They call trump all those names and their the one's that act it out, typical fucking libtarts. Keep acting out and you'll get another 4 yrs of trump plus he has a lot of smart kids, ya never know it might end up a TRUMP DYNASTY...


----------



## American_Jihad

boilermaker55 said:


> No, you are the fucktard.
> "the donald" was the one that put this out there.
> Big crybaby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why do people hate Liberals?*
> 
> Well after the election just look around. They call trump all those names and their the one's that act it out, typical fucking libtarts. Keep acting out and you'll get another 4 yrs of trump plus he has a lot of smart kids, ya never know it might end up a TRUMP DYNASTY...
Click to expand...


ROLMAO watch and enjoy crying libtarts.

My prediction 2024 ---> President Ivanka Trump...







LOL you can keep crying till 2032 and It might be another Trump after that...


----------



## American_Jihad

Wonder what happened to my buddy Saigon from Helstinki, maybe be the islamist ran him out...


----------



## francoHFW

OP- Ignoramuses hate being shown to be so... duh...dupes ditto.


----------



## American_Jihad

francoHFW said:


> OP- Ignoramuses hate being shown to be so... duh...dupes ditto.


You being a libtart makes you the Ignoramus...


----------



## francoHFW

American_Jihad said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Ignoramuses hate being shown to be so... duh...dupes ditto.
> 
> 
> 
> You being a libtart makes you the Ignoramus...
Click to expand...

And yet I don't hate you, just feel sorry for you, hater dupe. LOL. See sig, Buddy. lol.


----------



## francoHFW

Sort of like how Hillary just seemed bemused and amused by Trump's hate talk during the debates, a rehash of the hateful bs propaganda you dupes listen to every day....Poor America. How's that special prosecutor coming, hater dupes?


----------



## MaryL

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


I used to be a liberal, now Liberalism seems to be more about blind conformism and I loathe that. Racism or gay rights are  terms people glom onto without understanding . Gays aren't  a new class of humans that were deprived  of rights, totally false issue. Racism: complex issue boiled down to all whites are evil, which is both an over simplification and racial profiling at its  most basic. Thing is liberals create their own universe and we have to live in it. I reject THAT. I reject their fantasies. Rich white people with guilt complexes don't sway me anymore.


----------



## American_Jihad

francoHFW said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Ignoramuses hate being shown to be so... duh...dupes ditto.
> 
> 
> 
> You being a libtart makes you the Ignoramus...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet I don't hate you, just feel sorry for you, hater dupe. LOL. See sig, Buddy. lol.
Click to expand...

That's what all the people see from your side is that everything you say and the names you call you actually do, you really are what you spout and hopefully will see the results in up coming elections...


----------



## francoHFW

American_Jihad said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Ignoramuses hate being shown to be so... duh...dupes ditto.
> 
> 
> 
> You being a libtart makes you the Ignoramus...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet I don't hate you, just feel sorry for you, hater dupe. LOL. See sig, Buddy. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what all the people see from your side is that everything you say and the names you call you actually do, you really are what you spout and hopefully will see the results in up coming elections...
Click to expand...

 ???????
Only if BS propaganda wins again. That was 25 years of hate propaganda against Hillary winning. All crap, dupe. And KGB Putin and GOP Comey innuendo. A disgrace.


----------



## bripat9643

francoHFW said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Ignoramuses hate being shown to be so... duh...dupes ditto.
> 
> 
> 
> You being a libtart makes you the Ignoramus...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet I don't hate you, just feel sorry for you, hater dupe. LOL. See sig, Buddy. lol.
Click to expand...

Yeah, rate, you don't hate anyone you call a "hater dupe" and and "ignoramus."


----------



## bripat9643

francoHFW said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Ignoramuses hate being shown to be so... duh...dupes ditto.
> 
> 
> 
> You being a libtart makes you the Ignoramus...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet I don't hate you, just feel sorry for you, hater dupe. LOL. See sig, Buddy. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what all the people see from your side is that everything you say and the names you call you actually do, you really are what you spout and hopefully will see the results in up coming elections...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???????
> Only if BS propaganda wins again. That was 25 years of hate propaganda against Hillary winning. All crap, dupe. And KGB Putin and GOP Comey innuendo. A disgrace.
Click to expand...

How can the truth be propaganda?


----------



## francoHFW

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Ignoramuses hate being shown to be so... duh...dupes ditto.
> 
> 
> 
> You being a libtart makes you the Ignoramus...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet I don't hate you, just feel sorry for you, hater dupe. LOL. See sig, Buddy. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, rate, you don't hate anyone you call a "hater dupe" and and "ignoramus."
Click to expand...

Those are political insults, not personal insults. My district voted 73% Trump, Collins is the Rep. Great people but they believe all the crap and hate blacks though they don't know any...Rural republicans I have no problem with until they try national politics.


----------



## francoHFW

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Ignoramuses hate being shown to be so... duh...dupes ditto.
> 
> 
> 
> You being a libtart makes you the Ignoramus...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet I don't hate you, just feel sorry for you, hater dupe. LOL. See sig, Buddy. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what all the people see from your side is that everything you say and the names you call you actually do, you really are what you spout and hopefully will see the results in up coming elections...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???????
> Only if BS propaganda wins again. That was 25 years of hate propaganda against Hillary winning. All crap, dupe. And KGB Putin and GOP Comey innuendo. A disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can the truth be propaganda?
Click to expand...

Doesn't have to be BS, but the New BS GOP's certainly is, dupe.
*Propaganda* is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view".


----------



## American_Jihad

francoHFW said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> You being a libtart makes you the Ignoramus...
> 
> 
> 
> And yet I don't hate you, just feel sorry for you, hater dupe. LOL. See sig, Buddy. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what all the people see from your side is that everything you say and the names you call you actually do, you really are what you spout and hopefully will see the results in up coming elections...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???????
> Only if BS propaganda wins again. That was 25 years of hate propaganda against Hillary winning. All crap, dupe. And KGB Putin and GOP Comey innuendo. A disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can the truth be propaganda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't have to be BS, but the New BS GOP's certainly is, dupe.
> *Propaganda* is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view".
Click to expand...

You and your clan are full of 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ...

MadCow said we have to use pics for the left are stupid/slow...


----------



## francoHFW

American_Jihad said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet I don't hate you, just feel sorry for you, hater dupe. LOL. See sig, Buddy. lol.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what all the people see from your side is that everything you say and the names you call you actually do, you really are what you spout and hopefully will see the results in up coming elections...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???????
> Only if BS propaganda wins again. That was 25 years of hate propaganda against Hillary winning. All crap, dupe. And KGB Putin and GOP Comey innuendo. A disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can the truth be propaganda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't have to be BS, but the New BS GOP's certainly is, dupe.
> *Propaganda* is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your clan are full of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> MadCow said we have to use pics for the left are stupid/slow...
Click to expand...

So how's the Hillary special prosecutor coming, dupe?


----------



## American_Jihad

francoHFW said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what all the people see from your side is that everything you say and the names you call you actually do, you really are what you spout and hopefully will see the results in up coming elections...
> 
> 
> 
> ???????
> Only if BS propaganda wins again. That was 25 years of hate propaganda against Hillary winning. All crap, dupe. And KGB Putin and GOP Comey innuendo. A disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can the truth be propaganda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't have to be BS, but the New BS GOP's certainly is, dupe.
> *Propaganda* is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your clan are full of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> MadCow said we have to use pics for the left are stupid/slow...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how's the Hillary special prosecutor coming, dupe?
Click to expand...

They have two years dupe...


----------



## francoHFW

American_Jihad said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ???????
> Only if BS propaganda wins again. That was 25 years of hate propaganda against Hillary winning. All crap, dupe. And KGB Putin and GOP Comey innuendo. A disgrace.
> 
> 
> 
> How can the truth be propaganda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't have to be BS, but the New BS GOP's certainly is, dupe.
> *Propaganda* is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your clan are full of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> MadCow said we have to use pics for the left are stupid/slow...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how's the Hillary special prosecutor coming, dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have two years dupe...
Click to expand...

What charge? lol


----------



## American_Jihad

francoHFW said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can the truth be propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't have to be BS, but the New BS GOP's certainly is, dupe.
> *Propaganda* is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your clan are full of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> MadCow said we have to use pics for the left are stupid/slow...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how's the Hillary special prosecutor coming, dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have two years dupe...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What charge? lol
Click to expand...

Your so dumb that trying to communicate with you is a waste of keyboard strokes...





...


----------



## bripat9643

francoHFW said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> You being a libtart makes you the Ignoramus...
> 
> 
> 
> And yet I don't hate you, just feel sorry for you, hater dupe. LOL. See sig, Buddy. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what all the people see from your side is that everything you say and the names you call you actually do, you really are what you spout and hopefully will see the results in up coming elections...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???????
> Only if BS propaganda wins again. That was 25 years of hate propaganda against Hillary winning. All crap, dupe. And KGB Putin and GOP Comey innuendo. A disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can the truth be propaganda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't have to be BS, but the New BS GOP's certainly is, dupe.
> *Propaganda* is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view".
Click to expand...

If it's "biased" and "misleading," it isn't truth.  You just shot down your own claim.


----------



## Faun

American_Jihad said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't have to be BS, but the New BS GOP's certainly is, dupe.
> *Propaganda* is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view".
> 
> 
> 
> You and your clan are full of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> MadCow said we have to use pics for the left are stupid/slow...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how's the Hillary special prosecutor coming, dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have two years dupe...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What charge? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your so dumb that trying to communicate with you is a waste of keyboard strokes...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
Click to expand...

Oh, please, anyone can put words on a picture...


----------



## francoHFW

American_Jihad said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't have to be BS, but the New BS GOP's certainly is, dupe.
> *Propaganda* is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view".
> 
> 
> 
> You and your clan are full of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> MadCow said we have to use pics for the left are stupid/slow...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how's the Hillary special prosecutor coming, dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have two years dupe...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What charge? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your so dumb that trying to communicate with you is a waste of keyboard strokes...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
Click to expand...

Never said that. More fake news for the dupe...


----------



## francoHFW

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet I don't hate you, just feel sorry for you, hater dupe. LOL. See sig, Buddy. lol.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what all the people see from your side is that everything you say and the names you call you actually do, you really are what you spout and hopefully will see the results in up coming elections...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???????
> Only if BS propaganda wins again. That was 25 years of hate propaganda against Hillary winning. All crap, dupe. And KGB Putin and GOP Comey innuendo. A disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can the truth be propaganda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't have to be BS, but the New BS GOP's certainly is, dupe.
> *Propaganda* is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it's "biased" and "misleading," it isn't truth.  You just shot down your own claim.
Click to expand...

Can you read? Propaganda is simply information. What dupes get is bs propaganda. The New BS GOP is a disgrace. Poor America....


----------



## Faun

American_Jihad said:


> Your so dumb...


You have to love these brain-dead rightards. If nothing else, they're always worth a good laugh.


----------



## bripat9643

francoHFW said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what all the people see from your side is that everything you say and the names you call you actually do, you really are what you spout and hopefully will see the results in up coming elections...
> 
> 
> 
> ???????
> Only if BS propaganda wins again. That was 25 years of hate propaganda against Hillary winning. All crap, dupe. And KGB Putin and GOP Comey innuendo. A disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can the truth be propaganda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't have to be BS, but the New BS GOP's certainly is, dupe.
> *Propaganda* is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it's "biased" and "misleading," it isn't truth.  You just shot down your own claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you read? Propaganda is simply information. What dupes get is bs propaganda. The New BS GOP is a disgrace. Poor America....
Click to expand...


Information is information.  Propaganda is something else.  It's bullshit.


----------



## francoHFW

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ???????
> Only if BS propaganda wins again. That was 25 years of hate propaganda against Hillary winning. All crap, dupe. And KGB Putin and GOP Comey innuendo. A disgrace.
> 
> 
> 
> How can the truth be propaganda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't have to be BS, but the New BS GOP's certainly is, dupe.
> *Propaganda* is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it's "biased" and "misleading," it isn't truth.  You just shot down your own claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you read? Propaganda is simply information. What dupes get is bs propaganda. The New BS GOP is a disgrace. Poor America....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Information is information.  Propaganda is something else.  It's bullshit.
Click to expand...

Can you read? That's the dictionary definition, superdupe. In your RW FOXRush etc case, IT IS BS.

*Propaganda* is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view".


----------



## American_Jihad

Faun said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your so dumb...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to love these brain-dead rightards. If nothing else, they're always worth a good laugh.
Click to expand...

Your so dumb that trying to communicate with LIBTARTS is a waste of keyboard strokes...

(That was ez)


----------



## Faun

American_Jihad said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your so dumb...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to love these brain-dead rightards. If nothing else, they're always worth a good laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your so dumb that trying to communicate with LIBTARTS is a waste of keyboard strokes...
> 
> (That was ez)
Click to expand...

Nah, dumb is performing an action you claim is a "waste" but you do it anyway. And nothing screams dumbfuck louder than misspelling words while calling someone else dumb.


----------



## bripat9643

francoHFW said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can the truth be propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't have to be BS, but the New BS GOP's certainly is, dupe.
> *Propaganda* is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it's "biased" and "misleading," it isn't truth.  You just shot down your own claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you read? Propaganda is simply information. What dupes get is bs propaganda. The New BS GOP is a disgrace. Poor America....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Information is information.  Propaganda is something else.  It's bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you read? That's the dictionary definition, superdupe. In your RW FOXRush etc case, IT IS BS.
> 
> *Propaganda* is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view".
Click to expand...


The dictionary agrees with what I posted.


----------



## dfens

I'm actually not much of a liberal anymore, but there is a reason why they are hated.

Second rate, beta white men in America hate blacks, hate immigrants, and hate the fact that they aren't the ones pulling the strings, and can't bomb anybody they like.  So they fall back on things which give them identity and power, like religion, guns, making money, etc.

Liberals don't necessarily take those away, but they do say that there are more important things like healthcare, like a government that works, like trying to get along with each other and the world.  That offends the manliness of white men in America who desperately want power and money.

So why am I not really liberal anymore?  Because I, of my own mind, came to the conclusion of the futility.  Look, we are all tribal creatures who hate each other.  Liberalism really is a bunch of kumbaya nonsense, and personally speaking, I am just interested in my life and surviving as long as possible.


----------



## American_Jihad

Faun said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your so dumb...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to love these brain-dead rightards. If nothing else, they're always worth a good laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your so dumb that trying to communicate with LIBTARTS is a waste of keyboard strokes...
> 
> (That was ez)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, dumb is performing an action you claim is a "waste" but you do it anyway. And nothing screams dumbfuck louder than misspelling words while calling someone else dumb.
Click to expand...

See, now everybody knows how typical you lefties are with the spell checks when you got nothing to say. That's one reason people hate you libtarts...


----------



## Faun

American_Jihad said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your so dumb...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to love these brain-dead rightards. If nothing else, they're always worth a good laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your so dumb that trying to communicate with LIBTARTS is a waste of keyboard strokes...
> 
> (That was ez)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, dumb is performing an action you claim is a "waste" but you do it anyway. And nothing screams dumbfuck louder than misspelling words while calling someone else dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, now everybody knows how typical you lefties are with the spell checks when you got nothing to say. That's one reason people hate you libtarts...
Click to expand...


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

MaryL said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> I reject their fantasies. Rich white people with guilt complexes don't sway me anymore.
Click to expand...

*The Gilded Need to Be Gelded*

They're only rich because of Daddy's Money.  Without that, they'd be nobodies no one ever heard of.  All their ideologies are sheltered and ignorant, spoiled and pushy, soft and degenerate.  Their whole agenda is as silly as letting a ten-year-old vote and drive a car.  The fact that we respond to such idiocy as if it were anything more rational than astrology and Elvis Lives! proves the unearned influence their Daddies bought for them.  They are Camelot's camel dung.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



/---- they are intolerant


----------



## Marion Morrison

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.




I don't hate liberals. I disagree with them, but we can have communication and discourse


As for leftist fucktwats and Antifa. Keep pushing and I'll put rounds in your heads.

You're not going to usurp the US, tards.


----------



## American_Jihad

Faun said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your so dumb...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to love these brain-dead rightards. If nothing else, they're always worth a good laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your so dumb that trying to communicate with LIBTARTS is a waste of keyboard strokes...
> 
> (That was ez)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, dumb is performing an action you claim is a "waste" but you do it anyway. And nothing screams dumbfuck louder than misspelling words while calling someone else dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, now everybody knows how typical you lefties are with the spell checks when you got nothing to say. That's one reason people hate you libtarts...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Is that what you had to do when you were a little tart...


----------



## Dale Smith

There is no such thing as a "liberal" anymore as it pertains to the Fabian socialist ran demcrat party nor is there anything that resembles a "conservative" as it pertains to the neocon Trotsky-ite ran repub party....just different sides of the same coin and both parties ran by the same banking oligarchs...but I digress. 

Liberals were once about individual liberties and freedoms and against "mob rule". Collectivism wasn't even in their vocabulary unless they were spitting  out the word in disgust and they were against Marxism. The pseudo liberals were all about being "anti-establishment" until they became the "establishment"...the very thing that real liberals fought against. The puppetmasters and the Fabian socialists that they paid and trained at places of alleged "higher learning"  like the Frankford School and the Tavistock Institute perfected the art of propaganda funded by the elites to use as a weapon of "divide and conquer" and their weakest opponents were the so called "liberals" that suffered from victim hood syndrome and arrested development that were the most susceptible to the social engineering programming techniques. The pseudo "liberal" isn't pissed that some seem to have it so bad as they are pissed that some seem to have it too good and the reason that they have it too good wasn't because of their talent or because of their hard work...oh no, it was because they used the sweat equity of the downtrodden and desperate to elevate their status and thus must be punished.

What cracks me up is that while it is true that the ultra rich have done that....no argument there...but the elites funded the very foundations that have sown the seeds of discontent. They funded the environmental movement...not because of their love of the eco-system that they themselves were (and are) intentionally trying to damage  but rather they used the emotionally under-developed "liberal" to push an agenda that would create artificial scarcities that would enrich them while killing the middle class. Let's get down to the brass tacks of the OP's post. The commie progressives are not about bringing people up at all....they are all about bring people down to the same level because they are easier to control and leave less of a "carbon" footprint". Agenda 21 and it's now called "Agenda 2030 means a total communist state and how will they try to accomplish this? By the farce of "Climate Change" and their claim that petroleum is a "fossil fuel" which is nonsense. Oil is the second most prevalent liquid on earth just behind water. Oil is an abiotic fluid naturally produced by the earth's crust. The banking oligarchs know that the ability to get away from the use of petroleum exists and has since the days of Tesla but "free energy" self-generating devices would mean that people would forgo the petroleum based economy that the elites control.

Why do I hate what passes as today's "liberal"? It's simple.....the very elite class that they claim to be against has used them like a crack addicted whore to push their every agenda designed to kill the middle class and they are too stupid to see it. I have very little use for stupid fucks.


----------



## Faun

American_Jihad said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to love these brain-dead rightards. If nothing else, they're always worth a good laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your so dumb that trying to communicate with LIBTARTS is a waste of keyboard strokes...
> 
> (That was ez)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, dumb is performing an action you claim is a "waste" but you do it anyway. And nothing screams dumbfuck louder than misspelling words while calling someone else dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, now everybody knows how typical you lefties are with the spell checks when you got nothing to say. That's one reason people hate you libtarts...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what you had to do when you were a little tart...
Click to expand...

No, it's what I do for useless idiots.


----------



## Chuz Life

*Why do people hate Liberals?*

*Hate* is such a strong word. I think if I truly hated someone, the last thing I would be doing is posting about it on the internet. 

That said, I despise libtardz with a passion. 

And I'll bet I don't even have to say why, for most anyone here to know "why."

Imagine that.


----------



## Dale Smith

Chuz Life said:


> *Why do people hate Liberals?*
> 
> *Hate* is such a strong word. I think if I truly hated someone, the last thing I would be doing is posting about it on the internet.
> 
> That said, I despise libtardz with a passion.
> 
> And I'll bet I don't even have to say why, for most anyone here to know "why."
> 
> Imagine that.



The Fabian socialists that took over the demcrat party follow the communist creed of "By any means necessary"...which means that they have no moral code that they live by because the ends justifies the means. These wolves in sheep clothing have suckered enough commie sympathizers for their cause...and who funded this movement? The very elites that these idealistic commies claim to be against........the jokes practically write themselves. Seriously, you can't make this shit up and if I was watching this from afar? I would be laughing my ASS off. The alleged "opposition" party that lamely attempts to war against the commies are in lockstep with them because they are owned by the same banking oligarchs. The "Deep State" is the real power that is the puppet masters and it came into existence with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and we lost the ability to coin real money. But they needed to garner the favor of at least one political party first and infiltrated the dems (which they did) and then they infiltrated the repub party. The globalists haven't had a better pawn than the leftists and that isn't even up for a debate......


----------



## Faun

Chuz Life said:


> *Why do people hate Liberals?*
> 
> *Hate* is such a strong word. I think if I truly hated someone, the last thing I would be doing is posting about it on the internet.
> 
> That said, I despise libtardz with a passion.
> 
> And I'll bet I don't even have to say why, for most anyone here to know "why."
> 
> Imagine that.


Thanks for the vote of confidence. I can find no better confirmation that Liberals are heading in the right direction than when despised by our opposition.


----------



## Chuz Life

Faun said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why do people hate Liberals?*
> 
> *Hate* is such a strong word. I think if I truly hated someone, the last thing I would be doing is posting about it on the internet.
> 
> That said, I despise libtardz with a passion.
> 
> And I'll bet I don't even have to say why, for most anyone here to know "why."
> 
> Imagine that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the vote of confidence. I can find no better confirmation that *Liberals are heading in the right direction* than when despised by our opposition.
Click to expand...


That explains the election losses, the EO's being overturned, your loss of the next two or three Supreme Court pics and all the fucking melting snowflake riots!


Thanks for the laugh, Sparky!


----------



## IsaacNewton

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



First of all don't read all that into what you read on a message board or any internet board. The anonymity of the internet enables the angries to vomit on their keyboard and hit send because they don't have anything of value to add to humanity and they are safe from retaliation. They won't do it in person. Secondly fear is generally what drives conservatives. Don't take my word for it just look at the posts here or listen to conservative talk radio or watch conservative news. It is nonstop 'war on something' or 'terrorist watch'. They are constantly demonizing 'liberals' which does fit the stereotype you speak of. Most of the hatred directed towards 'libruls' comes from those outlets. I remember the time before Fox News and conservative talk radio. Conservatives had their opinions but most of them just considered 'liberals' as fellow Americans that had differing views. Conservative media has fed them the idea that 'no they are our mortal enemy and evil like Satan', over and over for 25 years. And it has worked.


----------



## Chuz Life

IsaacNewton said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all don't read all that into what you read on a message board or any internet board. The anonymity of the internet enables the angries to vomit on their keyboard and hit send because they don't have anything of value to add to humanity and they are safe from retaliation. They won't do it in person. Secondly fear is generally what drives conservatives. Don't take my word for it just look at the posts here or listen to conservative talk radio or watch conservative news. It is nonstop 'war on something' or 'terrorist watch'. They are constantly demonizing 'liberals' which does fit the stereotype you speak of. Most of the hatred directed towards 'libruls' comes from those outlets. I remember the time before Fox News and conservative talk radio. Conservatives had their opinions but most of them just considered 'liberals' as fellow Americans that had differing views. Conservative media has fed them the idea that 'no they are our mortal enemy and evil like Satan', over and over for 25 years. And it has worked.
Click to expand...


Newsflash for you SnowFlake... people aren't Conservative as a result of hearing a few programs on Talk Radio. If that were the case, all the Libtardz that tune in everyday would already be converted by now. 

Conservative media is popular because we Conservatives FINALLY have a fucking section of the overall media that calls it like WE conservatives see it and we don't have to rely only one the libtarded big three anymore to spoonfeed us their drivel anymore. 

You fucking morons actually believe taking out O'Riley, Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity will somehow squelch the grass roots of Conservatism.... when in fact, modern day Conservatism is a REACTION to the leftarded agenda itself. 

YOU and YOUR ILK, your leftarded agenda for cramming leftarded policies down our throats.... YOU are the source for our growing social force. 

I don't pass any of that on to discourage you though. You fucktarded asshats actually serve as a great foil to help us wake up and reach more and more moderates and the momentum only grows even more from there.


----------



## IsaacNewton

Chuz Life said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all don't read all that into what you read on a message board or any internet board. The anonymity of the internet enables the angries to vomit on their keyboard and hit send because they don't have anything of value to add to humanity and they are safe from retaliation. They won't do it in person. Secondly fear is generally what drives conservatives. Don't take my word for it just look at the posts here or listen to conservative talk radio or watch conservative news. It is nonstop 'war on something' or 'terrorist watch'. They are constantly demonizing 'liberals' which does fit the stereotype you speak of. Most of the hatred directed towards 'libruls' comes from those outlets. I remember the time before Fox News and conservative talk radio. Conservatives had their opinions but most of them just considered 'liberals' as fellow Americans that had differing views. Conservative media has fed them the idea that 'no they are our mortal enemy and evil like Satan', over and over for 25 years. And it has worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Newsflash for you SnowFlake... people aren't Conservative as a result of hearing a few programs on Talk Radio. If that were the case, all the Libtardz that tune in everyday would already be converted by now.
> 
> Conservative media is popular because we Conservatives FINALLY have a fucking section of the overall media that calls it like WE conservatives see it and we don't have to rely only one the libtarded big three anymore to spoonfeed us their drivel anymore.
> 
> You fucking morons actually believe taking out O'Riley, Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity will somehow squelch the grass roots of Conservatism.... when in fact, modern day Conservatism is a REACTION to the leftarded agenda itself.
> 
> YOU and YOUR ILK, your leftarded agenda for cramming leftarded policies down our throats.... YOU are the source for our growing social force.
> 
> I don't pass any of that on to discourage you though. You fucktarded asshats actually serve as a great foil to help us wake up and reach more and more moderates and the momentum only grows even more from there.
Click to expand...

 
Again you demonstrate the point. Your level of hatred for other people was generally absent 30 years ago. Now you view people that don't share your exact view of life as evil. 

They aren't Cubby. Hatred is just what keeps you warm, it has nothing to do with other people.


----------



## Chuz Life

IsaacNewton said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all don't read all that into what you read on a message board or any internet board. The anonymity of the internet enables the angries to vomit on their keyboard and hit send because they don't have anything of value to add to humanity and they are safe from retaliation. They won't do it in person. Secondly fear is generally what drives conservatives. Don't take my word for it just look at the posts here or listen to conservative talk radio or watch conservative news. It is nonstop 'war on something' or 'terrorist watch'. They are constantly demonizing 'liberals' which does fit the stereotype you speak of. Most of the hatred directed towards 'libruls' comes from those outlets. I remember the time before Fox News and conservative talk radio. Conservatives had their opinions but most of them just considered 'liberals' as fellow Americans that had differing views. Conservative media has fed them the idea that 'no they are our mortal enemy and evil like Satan', over and over for 25 years. And it has worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Newsflash for you SnowFlake... people aren't Conservative as a result of hearing a few programs on Talk Radio. If that were the case, all the Libtardz that tune in everyday would already be converted by now.
> 
> Conservative media is popular because we Conservatives FINALLY have a fucking section of the overall media that calls it like WE conservatives see it and we don't have to rely only one the libtarded big three anymore to spoonfeed us their drivel anymore.
> 
> You fucking morons actually believe taking out O'Riley, Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity will somehow squelch the grass roots of Conservatism.... when in fact, modern day Conservatism is a REACTION to the leftarded agenda itself.
> 
> YOU and YOUR ILK, your leftarded agenda for cramming leftarded policies down our throats.... YOU are the source for our growing social force.
> 
> I don't pass any of that on to discourage you though. You fucktarded asshats actually serve as a great foil to help us wake up and reach more and more moderates and the momentum only grows even more from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you demonstrate the point. Your level of hatred for other people was generally absent 30 years ago. Now you view people that don't share your exact view of life as evil.
> 
> They aren't Cubby. Hatred is just what keeps you warm, it has nothing to do with other people.
Click to expand...


50 Million (plus) slaughtered children, snowflake. THAT will forever be your legacy! and It was also your legacy 30 years ago when the numbers were slightly fewer.

Your denial of the FACT that children's rights are being denied.... Your denials that they are even human beings, children, etc?

THAT only fuels the reactions MORE!

So, You go ahead with your clueless self and continue thinking we are all just non thinking puppets of "Conservative Talk Radio."

This train aint slowing down for your asses to catch up any more.


----------



## IsaacNewton

Chuz Life said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all don't read all that into what you read on a message board or any internet board. The anonymity of the internet enables the angries to vomit on their keyboard and hit send because they don't have anything of value to add to humanity and they are safe from retaliation. They won't do it in person. Secondly fear is generally what drives conservatives. Don't take my word for it just look at the posts here or listen to conservative talk radio or watch conservative news. It is nonstop 'war on something' or 'terrorist watch'. They are constantly demonizing 'liberals' which does fit the stereotype you speak of. Most of the hatred directed towards 'libruls' comes from those outlets. I remember the time before Fox News and conservative talk radio. Conservatives had their opinions but most of them just considered 'liberals' as fellow Americans that had differing views. Conservative media has fed them the idea that 'no they are our mortal enemy and evil like Satan', over and over for 25 years. And it has worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Newsflash for you SnowFlake... people aren't Conservative as a result of hearing a few programs on Talk Radio. If that were the case, all the Libtardz that tune in everyday would already be converted by now.
> 
> Conservative media is popular because we Conservatives FINALLY have a fucking section of the overall media that calls it like WE conservatives see it and we don't have to rely only one the libtarded big three anymore to spoonfeed us their drivel anymore.
> 
> You fucking morons actually believe taking out O'Riley, Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity will somehow squelch the grass roots of Conservatism.... when in fact, modern day Conservatism is a REACTION to the leftarded agenda itself.
> 
> YOU and YOUR ILK, your leftarded agenda for cramming leftarded policies down our throats.... YOU are the source for our growing social force.
> 
> I don't pass any of that on to discourage you though. You fucktarded asshats actually serve as a great foil to help us wake up and reach more and more moderates and the momentum only grows even more from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you demonstrate the point. Your level of hatred for other people was generally absent 30 years ago. Now you view people that don't share your exact view of life as evil.
> 
> They aren't Cubby. Hatred is just what keeps you warm, it has nothing to do with other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 Million (plus) slaughtered children, snowflake. THAT will forever be your legacy! and It was also your legacy 30 years ago when the numbers were slightly fewer.
> 
> Your denial of the FACT that children's rights are being denied.... Your denials that they are even human beings, children, etc?
> 
> THAT only fuels the reactions MORE!
> 
> So, You go ahead with your clueless self and continue thinking we are all just non thinking puppets of "Conservative Talk Radio."
> 
> This train aint slowing down for your asses to catch up any more.
Click to expand...


20,000 children die around the world every day of disease and hunger, you are nowhere. 250,000,000 the last 30 years, you were nowhere. Republicans are giddy with the prospect of throwing millions of families with children out of healthcare. You, nowhere. 

There are no pro-lifers. They and you are pro-birth. Once born you could not care less if a child dies an hour later. You go take care of those children already living who are dying horrible deaths while you bang out hatred on your keyboard and you'll have a leg to stand on. Your nonsense doesn't sell anymore. You aren't 'moral' and you don't hold any high ground. You'll read this, get mad, and then forget all those children because you don't have to see or hear them. 

But they're there. 20,000 a day, 1 every 4 seconds. While you and the rest of fake Kristianity does nothing because nothing doesn't cost money or require work. 

Nighty night snowflake.


----------



## Chuz Life

IsaacNewton said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all don't read all that into what you read on a message board or any internet board. The anonymity of the internet enables the angries to vomit on their keyboard and hit send because they don't have anything of value to add to humanity and they are safe from retaliation. They won't do it in person. Secondly fear is generally what drives conservatives. Don't take my word for it just look at the posts here or listen to conservative talk radio or watch conservative news. It is nonstop 'war on something' or 'terrorist watch'. They are constantly demonizing 'liberals' which does fit the stereotype you speak of. Most of the hatred directed towards 'libruls' comes from those outlets. I remember the time before Fox News and conservative talk radio. Conservatives had their opinions but most of them just considered 'liberals' as fellow Americans that had differing views. Conservative media has fed them the idea that 'no they are our mortal enemy and evil like Satan', over and over for 25 years. And it has worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Newsflash for you SnowFlake... people aren't Conservative as a result of hearing a few programs on Talk Radio. If that were the case, all the Libtardz that tune in everyday would already be converted by now.
> 
> Conservative media is popular because we Conservatives FINALLY have a fucking section of the overall media that calls it like WE conservatives see it and we don't have to rely only one the libtarded big three anymore to spoonfeed us their drivel anymore.
> 
> You fucking morons actually believe taking out O'Riley, Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity will somehow squelch the grass roots of Conservatism.... when in fact, modern day Conservatism is a REACTION to the leftarded agenda itself.
> 
> YOU and YOUR ILK, your leftarded agenda for cramming leftarded policies down our throats.... YOU are the source for our growing social force.
> 
> I don't pass any of that on to discourage you though. You fucktarded asshats actually serve as a great foil to help us wake up and reach more and more moderates and the momentum only grows even more from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you demonstrate the point. Your level of hatred for other people was generally absent 30 years ago. Now you view people that don't share your exact view of life as evil.
> 
> They aren't Cubby. Hatred is just what keeps you warm, it has nothing to do with other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 Million (plus) slaughtered children, snowflake. THAT will forever be your legacy! and It was also your legacy 30 years ago when the numbers were slightly fewer.
> 
> Your denial of the FACT that children's rights are being denied.... Your denials that they are even human beings, children, etc?
> 
> THAT only fuels the reactions MORE!
> 
> So, You go ahead with your clueless self and continue thinking we are all just non thinking puppets of "Conservative Talk Radio."
> 
> This train aint slowing down for your asses to catch up any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 20,000 children die around the world every day of disease and hunger, you are nowhere. 250,000,000 the last 30 years, you were nowhere. Republicans are giddy with the prospect of throwing millions of families with children out of healthcare. You, nowhere.
> 
> There are no pro-lifers. They and you are pro-birth. Once born you could not care less if a child dies an hour later. You go take care of those children already living who are dying horrible deaths while you bang out hatred on your keyboard and you'll have a leg to stand on. Your nonsense doesn't sell anymore. You aren't 'moral' and you don't hold any high ground. You'll read this, get mad, and then forget all those children because you don't have to see or hear them.
> 
> But they're there. 20,000 a day, 1 every 4 seconds. While you and the rest of fake Kristianity does nothing because nothing doesn't cost money or require work.
> 
> Nighty night snowflake.
Click to expand...



Enjoy your legacy, fucktard. 

I'll sleep good knowing (and respecting) the facts and the truth that you (and all the other fuckstains) are in denial of. That we support laws and policies that protect ALL children's rights regardless of whether they are in the womb or out of it. 

It's actually quite sick how you and your ilk use the unfortunate circumstances of one group of children facing hunger, war or some other demise..... as your justification for the denial of other children's rights... while they are still in the womb. 

Sleep on that! You sick twisted fuck.


----------



## IsaacNewton

Chuz Life said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all don't read all that into what you read on a message board or any internet board. The anonymity of the internet enables the angries to vomit on their keyboard and hit send because they don't have anything of value to add to humanity and they are safe from retaliation. They won't do it in person. Secondly fear is generally what drives conservatives. Don't take my word for it just look at the posts here or listen to conservative talk radio or watch conservative news. It is nonstop 'war on something' or 'terrorist watch'. They are constantly demonizing 'liberals' which does fit the stereotype you speak of. Most of the hatred directed towards 'libruls' comes from those outlets. I remember the time before Fox News and conservative talk radio. Conservatives had their opinions but most of them just considered 'liberals' as fellow Americans that had differing views. Conservative media has fed them the idea that 'no they are our mortal enemy and evil like Satan', over and over for 25 years. And it has worked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash for you SnowFlake... people aren't Conservative as a result of hearing a few programs on Talk Radio. If that were the case, all the Libtardz that tune in everyday would already be converted by now.
> 
> Conservative media is popular because we Conservatives FINALLY have a fucking section of the overall media that calls it like WE conservatives see it and we don't have to rely only one the libtarded big three anymore to spoonfeed us their drivel anymore.
> 
> You fucking morons actually believe taking out O'Riley, Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity will somehow squelch the grass roots of Conservatism.... when in fact, modern day Conservatism is a REACTION to the leftarded agenda itself.
> 
> YOU and YOUR ILK, your leftarded agenda for cramming leftarded policies down our throats.... YOU are the source for our growing social force.
> 
> I don't pass any of that on to discourage you though. You fucktarded asshats actually serve as a great foil to help us wake up and reach more and more moderates and the momentum only grows even more from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you demonstrate the point. Your level of hatred for other people was generally absent 30 years ago. Now you view people that don't share your exact view of life as evil.
> 
> They aren't Cubby. Hatred is just what keeps you warm, it has nothing to do with other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 Million (plus) slaughtered children, snowflake. THAT will forever be your legacy! and It was also your legacy 30 years ago when the numbers were slightly fewer.
> 
> Your denial of the FACT that children's rights are being denied.... Your denials that they are even human beings, children, etc?
> 
> THAT only fuels the reactions MORE!
> 
> So, You go ahead with your clueless self and continue thinking we are all just non thinking puppets of "Conservative Talk Radio."
> 
> This train aint slowing down for your asses to catch up any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 20,000 children die around the world every day of disease and hunger, you are nowhere. 250,000,000 the last 30 years, you were nowhere. Republicans are giddy with the prospect of throwing millions of families with children out of healthcare. You, nowhere.
> 
> There are no pro-lifers. They and you are pro-birth. Once born you could not care less if a child dies an hour later. You go take care of those children already living who are dying horrible deaths while you bang out hatred on your keyboard and you'll have a leg to stand on. Your nonsense doesn't sell anymore. You aren't 'moral' and you don't hold any high ground. You'll read this, get mad, and then forget all those children because you don't have to see or hear them.
> 
> But they're there. 20,000 a day, 1 every 4 seconds. While you and the rest of fake Kristianity does nothing because nothing doesn't cost money or require work.
> 
> Nighty night snowflake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy your legacy, fucktard.
> 
> I'll sleep good knowing (and respecting) the facts and the truth that you (and all the other fuckstains) are in denial of. That we support laws and policies that protect ALL children's rights regardless of whether they are in the womb or out of it.
> 
> It's actually quite sick how you and your ilk use the unfortunate circumstances of one group of children facing hunger, war or some other demise..... as your justification for the denial of other children's rights... while they are still in the womb.
> 
> Sleep on that! You sick twisted fuck.
Click to expand...


You still typing? 10,000 more have died because you did nothing since your first rant. Turn you computer off and go be moral and help them live. You know, be pro-life. 

Don't worry, I know you won't because it will cost you money and effort which conservatives avoid like the plague.


----------



## Faun

Chuz Life said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why do people hate Liberals?*
> 
> *Hate* is such a strong word. I think if I truly hated someone, the last thing I would be doing is posting about it on the internet.
> 
> That said, I despise libtardz with a passion.
> 
> And I'll bet I don't even have to say why, for most anyone here to know "why."
> 
> Imagine that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the vote of confidence. I can find no better confirmation that *Liberals are heading in the right direction* than when despised by our opposition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That explains the election losses, the EO's being overturned, your loss of the next two or three Supreme Court pics and all the fucking melting snowflake riots!
> 
> 
> Thanks for the laugh, Sparky!
Click to expand...

Elections swing like pendulums. In a few years, it will swing back to the left.


----------



## Faun

Chuz Life said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all don't read all that into what you read on a message board or any internet board. The anonymity of the internet enables the angries to vomit on their keyboard and hit send because they don't have anything of value to add to humanity and they are safe from retaliation. They won't do it in person. Secondly fear is generally what drives conservatives. Don't take my word for it just look at the posts here or listen to conservative talk radio or watch conservative news. It is nonstop 'war on something' or 'terrorist watch'. They are constantly demonizing 'liberals' which does fit the stereotype you speak of. Most of the hatred directed towards 'libruls' comes from those outlets. I remember the time before Fox News and conservative talk radio. Conservatives had their opinions but most of them just considered 'liberals' as fellow Americans that had differing views. Conservative media has fed them the idea that 'no they are our mortal enemy and evil like Satan', over and over for 25 years. And it has worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Newsflash for you SnowFlake... people aren't Conservative as a result of hearing a few programs on Talk Radio. If that were the case, all the Libtardz that tune in everyday would already be converted by now.
> 
> Conservative media is popular because we Conservatives FINALLY have a fucking section of the overall media that calls it like WE conservatives see it and we don't have to rely only one the libtarded big three anymore to spoonfeed us their drivel anymore.
> 
> You fucking morons actually believe taking out O'Riley, Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity will somehow squelch the grass roots of Conservatism.... when in fact, modern day Conservatism is a REACTION to the leftarded agenda itself.
> 
> YOU and YOUR ILK, your leftarded agenda for cramming leftarded policies down our throats.... YOU are the source for our growing social force.
> 
> I don't pass any of that on to discourage you though. You fucktarded asshats actually serve as a great foil to help us wake up and reach more and more moderates and the momentum only grows even more from there.
Click to expand...

^^^ Unhinged ^^^


----------



## Faun

Chuz Life said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all don't read all that into what you read on a message board or any internet board. The anonymity of the internet enables the angries to vomit on their keyboard and hit send because they don't have anything of value to add to humanity and they are safe from retaliation. They won't do it in person. Secondly fear is generally what drives conservatives. Don't take my word for it just look at the posts here or listen to conservative talk radio or watch conservative news. It is nonstop 'war on something' or 'terrorist watch'. They are constantly demonizing 'liberals' which does fit the stereotype you speak of. Most of the hatred directed towards 'libruls' comes from those outlets. I remember the time before Fox News and conservative talk radio. Conservatives had their opinions but most of them just considered 'liberals' as fellow Americans that had differing views. Conservative media has fed them the idea that 'no they are our mortal enemy and evil like Satan', over and over for 25 years. And it has worked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash for you SnowFlake... people aren't Conservative as a result of hearing a few programs on Talk Radio. If that were the case, all the Libtardz that tune in everyday would already be converted by now.
> 
> Conservative media is popular because we Conservatives FINALLY have a fucking section of the overall media that calls it like WE conservatives see it and we don't have to rely only one the libtarded big three anymore to spoonfeed us their drivel anymore.
> 
> You fucking morons actually believe taking out O'Riley, Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity will somehow squelch the grass roots of Conservatism.... when in fact, modern day Conservatism is a REACTION to the leftarded agenda itself.
> 
> YOU and YOUR ILK, your leftarded agenda for cramming leftarded policies down our throats.... YOU are the source for our growing social force.
> 
> I don't pass any of that on to discourage you though. You fucktarded asshats actually serve as a great foil to help us wake up and reach more and more moderates and the momentum only grows even more from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you demonstrate the point. Your level of hatred for other people was generally absent 30 years ago. Now you view people that don't share your exact view of life as evil.
> 
> They aren't Cubby. Hatred is just what keeps you warm, it has nothing to do with other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 Million (plus) slaughtered children, snowflake. THAT will forever be your legacy! and It was also your legacy 30 years ago when the numbers were slightly fewer.
> 
> Your denial of the FACT that children's rights are being denied.... Your denials that they are even human beings, children, etc?
> 
> THAT only fuels the reactions MORE!
> 
> So, You go ahead with your clueless self and continue thinking we are all just non thinking puppets of "Conservative Talk Radio."
> 
> This train aint slowing down for your asses to catch up any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 20,000 children die around the world every day of disease and hunger, you are nowhere. 250,000,000 the last 30 years, you were nowhere. Republicans are giddy with the prospect of throwing millions of families with children out of healthcare. You, nowhere.
> 
> There are no pro-lifers. They and you are pro-birth. Once born you could not care less if a child dies an hour later. You go take care of those children already living who are dying horrible deaths while you bang out hatred on your keyboard and you'll have a leg to stand on. Your nonsense doesn't sell anymore. You aren't 'moral' and you don't hold any high ground. You'll read this, get mad, and then forget all those children because you don't have to see or hear them.
> 
> But they're there. 20,000 a day, 1 every 4 seconds. While you and the rest of fake Kristianity does nothing because nothing doesn't cost money or require work.
> 
> Nighty night snowflake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy your legacy, fucktard.
> 
> I'll sleep good knowing (and respecting) the facts and the truth that you (and all the other fuckstains) are in denial of. That we support laws and policies that protect ALL children's rights regardless of whether they are in the womb or out of it.
> 
> It's actually quite sick how you and your ilk use the unfortunate circumstances of one group of children facing hunger, war or some other demise..... as your justification for the denial of other children's rights... while they are still in the womb.
> 
> Sleep on that! You sick twisted fuck.
Click to expand...

Aww, you poor, snowflake. Sleep good on knowing abortion is not going to be outlawed.


----------



## Chuz Life

Faun said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why do people hate Liberals?*
> 
> *Hate* is such a strong word. I think if I truly hated someone, the last thing I would be doing is posting about it on the internet.
> 
> That said, I despise libtardz with a passion.
> 
> And I'll bet I don't even have to say why, for most anyone here to know "why."
> 
> Imagine that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the vote of confidence. I can find no better confirmation that *Liberals are heading in the right direction* than when despised by our opposition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That explains the election losses, the EO's being overturned, your loss of the next two or three Supreme Court pics and all the fucking melting snowflake riots!
> 
> 
> Thanks for the laugh, Sparky!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elections swing like pendulums. In a few years, it will swing back to the left.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you hang onto that.

Supreme Court pucks are bound to come back up in what? Fifteen years from now?

No worries! You got this!


----------



## Faun

Chuz Life said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why do people hate Liberals?*
> 
> *Hate* is such a strong word. I think if I truly hated someone, the last thing I would be doing is posting about it on the internet.
> 
> That said, I despise libtardz with a passion.
> 
> And I'll bet I don't even have to say why, for most anyone here to know "why."
> 
> Imagine that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the vote of confidence. I can find no better confirmation that *Liberals are heading in the right direction* than when despised by our opposition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That explains the election losses, the EO's being overturned, your loss of the next two or three Supreme Court pics and all the fucking melting snowflake riots!
> 
> 
> Thanks for the laugh, Sparky!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elections swing like pendulums. In a few years, it will swing back to the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you hang onto that.
> 
> Supreme Court pucks are bound to come back up in what? Fifteen years from now?
> 
> No worries! You got this!
Click to expand...

LOL

You still struggle with the thread topic, huh, snowflake?


----------



## Chuz Life

Faun said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why do people hate Liberals?*
> 
> *Hate* is such a strong word. I think if I truly hated someone, the last thing I would be doing is posting about it on the internet.
> 
> That said, I despise libtardz with a passion.
> 
> And I'll bet I don't even have to say why, for most anyone here to know "why."
> 
> Imagine that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the vote of confidence. I can find no better confirmation that *Liberals are heading in the right direction* than when despised by our opposition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That explains the election losses, the EO's being overturned, your loss of the next two or three Supreme Court pics and all the fucking melting snowflake riots!
> 
> 
> Thanks for the laugh, Sparky!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elections swing like pendulums. In a few years, it will swing back to the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you hang onto that.
> 
> Supreme Court pucks are bound to come back up in what? Fifteen years from now?
> 
> No worries! You got this!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You still struggle with the thread topic, huh, snowflake?
Click to expand...


LOL

Yeah. That's it!


----------



## Faun

Chuz Life said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the vote of confidence. I can find no better confirmation that *Liberals are heading in the right direction* than when despised by our opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That explains the election losses, the EO's being overturned, your loss of the next two or three Supreme Court pics and all the fucking melting snowflake riots!
> 
> 
> Thanks for the laugh, Sparky!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elections swing like pendulums. In a few years, it will swing back to the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you hang onto that.
> 
> Supreme Court pucks are bound to come back up in what? Fifteen years from now?
> 
> No worries! You got this!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You still struggle with the thread topic, huh, snowflake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Yeah. That's it!
Click to expand...

It must be... you can't stay on topic.


----------



## task0778

Why do people hate liberals?

Cuz they're assholes?   166 pages, I bet somebody has already said that, right?


----------



## whirlingmerc

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.




There is a lot of caricaturing going on.    Grant people the respect of at least saying they have a sincere viewpoint

Not knew,....  people caricature each other all the time 
and Jonah caricatured God in some ways as well  in who should get mercy
Jonah - a worldview in 50 sentences or less


----------



## American_Jihad

*A handy guide to Left-wing people for the under 10s*

...

Nowadays, working-class people are bored with socialism because it hasn’t made them rich and happy.

Nowadays left-wing people are middle-class people. Working class people are a big disappointment to left-wing people.

Left wing people now think that working class people are:
a) Simple and easily led
b) Un-enlightened and susceptible to short-term pleasures
c) Terribly sad and struggling, unable to cope on their own
d) All of the above

*Education is a life-long task*

Left-wing people think that working-class people are unable to think for themselves and require life-long education to help them make informed decisions.

Left-wing people work tirelessly on education programmes to encourage working class people to buy expensive food and clothes and not cheap food and clothes. They are disappointed that working-class people are un-ethical.

Working-class people like to drink alcohol, have sex and eat tasty food. They do not understand that these activities are dangerous and need continuous education from left-wing people.

...

*Left-wing people like to be sad and unhappy*

Many left-wing people have a very nice life, but they like to be sad. To help with this, they choose to be sad for other people. Sometimes these people are far away and sometimes they are nearby, but different to them.

...

A handy guide to Left-wing people for the under 10s | Spectator Life


----------



## SeaGal

*Why do people hate Liberals?
*
What liberals?  The progs ate them all. 
...
_"It seems a shame," the Walrus said,
"To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"The butter's spread too thick!"

 "I weep for you," the Walrus said:
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.

"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.
The Walrus and The Carpenter




_


----------



## Billo_Really

I think I'm pretty kick-ass!


----------



## Mac1958

There are plenty of clues as to why people don't care much for progressives (as compared to actual liberals).

Honest liberal Anthony provides a pretty strong clue, one that will be ignored:
.


----------



## task0778

Mac1958 said:


> There are plenty of clues as to why people don't care much for progressives (as compared to actual liberals).
> 
> Honest liberal Anthony provides a pretty strong clue, one that will be ignored:
> .



That was well said.   And some of us on the Right could do better too.


----------



## American_Jihad

If your a rabid libtart like Reasonable people might hate you...*http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/reasonable.61588/*


----------



## ChrisL

Mac1958 said:


> There are plenty of clues as to why people don't care much for progressives (as compared to actual liberals).
> 
> Honest liberal Anthony provides a pretty strong clue, one that will be ignored:
> .



He really nailed it there!  He could have shortened it and said, liberals are jerks!


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Billo_Really said:


> I think I'm pretty kick-ass!




Well, that makes exactly 1, anyway.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

I love liberals, myself.  I just wish more than just one or two would show up here.

What I absolutely loathe, however, are all the jack-booted authoritarian leftists who CALL themselves liberal, while being anything but.


----------



## Igrok_

cause they deserve it!


----------



## Kognisjon

A liberal is willing to recognize that there are many areas in life where there is neither right nor wrong, just a range of choices, choices which will not solve the whole of the problems, and are not good or bad, but more effective or less effective. This does not set well with conservatives, who prefer definate right and wrong.

Also, liberals accept reality far better than conservatives. They do not try to bend the real world into "the way things ought to be". That is why 'Conservatives' deny the science of AGW, in spite of all the evidence of a warming world around them, and the solid science behind the reason why. And when a major poltical party embraces this lack of recognition of reality, as the GOP has, there is no way that I can vote for them


----------



## WillowTree

Libtards are very hateable. They are violent asswipes!


----------



## peach174

Kognisjon said:


> A liberal is willing to recognize that there are many areas in life where there is neither right nor wrong, just a range of choices, choices which will not solve the whole of the problems, and are not good or bad, but more effective or less effective. This does not set well with conservatives, who prefer definate right and wrong.
> 
> Also, liberals accept reality far better than conservatives. They do not try to bend the real world into "the way things ought to be". That is why 'Conservatives' deny the science of AGW, in spite of all the evidence of a warming world around them, and the solid science behind the reason why. And when a major poltical party embraces this lack of recognition of reality, as the GOP has, there is no way that I can vote for them



The left are the ones who can't accept facts.
Conservatives have always said that it's false.
Then it came out that the data was false.


----------



## Dale Smith

Kognisjon said:


> A liberal is willing to recognize that there are many areas in life where there is neither right nor wrong, just a range of choices, choices which will not solve the whole of the problems, and are not good or bad, but more effective or less effective. This does not set well with conservatives, who prefer definate right and wrong.
> 
> Also, liberals accept reality far better than conservatives. They do not try to bend the real world into "the way things ought to be". That is why 'Conservatives' deny the science of AGW, in spite of all the evidence of a warming world around them, and the solid science behind the reason why. And when a major poltical party embraces this lack of recognition of reality, as the GOP has, there is no way that I can vote for them




AGW? Here it is.......it's man-made but not for the reasons you think.


----------



## task0778

Kognisjon said:


> A liberal is willing to recognize that there are many areas in life where there is neither right nor wrong, just a range of choices, choices which will not solve the whole of the problems, and are not good or bad, but more effective or less effective. This does not set well with conservatives, who prefer definate right and wrong.
> 
> Also, liberals accept reality far better than conservatives. They do not try to bend the real world into "the way things ought to be". That is why 'Conservatives' deny the science of AGW, in spite of all the evidence of a warming world around them, and the solid science behind the reason why. And when a major poltical party embraces this lack of recognition of reality, as the GOP has, there is no way that I can vote for them



I would suggest that your opinions are the exact opposite of reality.   Science is supposed to be all about doubt and skepticism, nothing should be accepted as absolute truth without clear and definitive proof, which does not exist in the case of AGW.   It is the liberals who declare that the science is 'settled', which is total hogwash.   And it is the liberals who are trying to bend the real world into the way things ought to be, according only to their way of thinking.   You have been brainwashed I think, and don't have the wit to know it or the desire to rethink and reconsider your views.


----------



## Moonglow

WillowTree said:


> Libtards are very hateable. They are violent asswipes!


Hello liberal...Your hate proves what a great liberal you is...


----------



## Bonzi

I don't hate liberals.

I think many (not all) are misled and have a very unrealistic view of things.


----------



## Moonglow

My view as a liberal is that you people don't know shit from shinola when it comes to interpretation, but then again all liberals are not all the same....Just like Conservatives....So your futile attempt to pigeon hole millions of people is as usual a total fail...


----------



## WillowTree

Bonzi said:


> I don't hate liberals.
> 
> I think many (not all) are misled and have a very unrealistic view of things.


They are evil. They hate America. They destroy cities, they break federal law and protect criminal illegals.
They refuse to secure the borders, they refuse to fund our military properly, they shutdown our entire gov. To meet illegals demands. They disgust me.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Kognisjon said:


> A liberal is willing to recognize that there are many areas in life where there is neither right nor wrong, just a range of choices, choices which will not solve the whole of the problems, and are not good or bad, but more effective or less effective. This does not set well with conservatives, who prefer definate right and wrong.
> 
> Also, liberals accept reality far better than conservatives. They do not try to bend the real world into "the way things ought to be". That is why 'Conservatives' deny the science of AGW, in spite of all the evidence of a warming world around them, and the solid science behind the reason why. And when a major poltical party embraces this lack of recognition of reality, as the GOP has, there is no way that I can vote for them




What evidence ?


----------



## Bonzi

The big problem is they see the world as it should be, and, think they can force it.
You can't.
It's not a perfect world, and, like children, if you let them do anything they want, chaos and disaster ensue.

Like most things in life, it's always a happy medium.

But, we are in a divisive state of mind in this country.  Maybe that is what we should really be concerned about.


----------



## TheParser

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.



As a newcomer and a moderate, I most respectfully disagree with you.

I have noticed the following:

1. Many members, both so-called conservatives and so-called liberals,  are very rude. (I, of course, never reply to them.)

2.  Conservatives on this board, in my opinion, do NOT have any more hatred for liberals than liberals have hatred  for conservatives.

3. One reason that some conservatives may find some liberals offputting is that some liberals are so  cocksure of their righteousness. They often feel that they have *the* word on every topic and that anyone who disagrees with them is, well, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a xenophobe, etc.

4. Another reason, let's be frank, is that many liberals want to blame many of the nation's problems on Caucasian people who happen to be conservative. It is only natural that those members who are both Caucasian and conservative take umbrage at such a tactic. Many liberals refuse to even consider the possibility that maybe Caucasians are NOT  the only ethnicity responsible for some of our problems (crime, immigration, etc.).

*****

If you visit other online politics forums, you will discover that they are usually heavily weighted in favor of liberals.  It is often 95% anti-Trump.  The other members do everything possible to drive the pro-Trump people away. Some forums are cozy little liberal clubs in which members spend their time slapping one another on the back for being fighters for social justice.

We should be grateful that US Message Board allows all points of view.

*****

As one of the few moderate members, I do not have any illusions about either liberals or conservatives.  Both sides have  good points and bad points.


----------



## task0778

Bonzi said:


> The big problem is they see the world as it should be, and, think they can force it.
> You can't.
> It's not a perfect world, and, like children, if you let them do anything they want, chaos and disaster ensue.
> 
> Like most things in life, it's always a happy medium.
> 
> But, we are in a divisive state of mind in this country.  Maybe that is what we should really be concerned about.



It isn't so much that we are a divided country in so many ways, we've pretty much been that way since the getgo.   It seems to me we've got too many people at the extremes that are taking over the national discourse and not enough moderates trying to bring us together, at least enough to cooperate and compromise.   There are too many people in positions of political power who are more concerned with their own power or that of their party relative to the rest of us.   And we don't vote those people out of office, we keep sending them back to Washington, so the problem is US, to some extent.   We need to be more knowledgeable and active in our politics, and maybe we're moving in that direction (I hope so).


----------



## Statistikhengst

task0778 said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big problem is they see the world as it should be, and, think they can force it.
> You can't.
> It's not a perfect world, and, like children, if you let them do anything they want, chaos and disaster ensue.
> 
> Like most things in life, it's always a happy medium.
> 
> But, we are in a divisive state of mind in this country.  Maybe that is what we should really be concerned about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't so much that we are a divided country in so many ways, *we've pretty much been that way since the getgo.   It seems to me we've got too many people at the extremes that are taking over the national discourse and not enough moderates trying to bring us together*, at least enough to cooperate and compromise.   There are too many people in positions of political power who are more concerned with their own power or that of their party relative to the rest of us.   And we don't vote those people out of office, we keep sending them back to Washington, so the problem is US, to some extent.   We need to be more knowledgeable and active in our politics, and maybe we're moving in that direction (I hope so).
Click to expand...


YEPP


----------



## Desperado

Because Liberals are socialists and socialists are communist.
I was taught in school that the only good communist was a dead communist


----------



## Faun

*Why do people hate Liberals?*

They hate our freedoms.


----------



## ChrisL

Because they are pompous assholes.


----------



## peach174

Because they stand up for lawlessness,  violence and will not tolerate any other political view points.


----------



## midcan5

The answer is simple and clear, it is necessary for some for without hate, a powerful universal emotion, they cease to be.  A hard question, maybe harder than hating liberals is, why does a mass shooter kill innocent people?  Hating liberals is easy to understand, it is an emotion based belief, taught by ideologues for many years now. Consider in the fifties liberal was praised and everyone was liberal. Even republicans had liberals. What changed was agitprop that still exists in right wing media. The memes are simple we all have heard them too often many are above in this thread.

But why kill innocents, since some profess to know why liberals are hated, let's see if they can figure out the mass shooter. Has their training extended to that one must wonder?  Liberals are easy, it's Pavlovian, but mass shooters?


*'Why Your Brain Hates Other People *- And how to make it think differently.''  Overcoming Us vs. Them

Why do people hate Liberals?

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"The remarkable thing is that we really love our neighbors as ourselves: we do unto others as we do unto ourselves. *We hate others when we hate ourselves.* We are tolerant of others when we tolerate ourselves. We forgive others when we forgive ourselves." Eric Hoffer
.


----------



## toobfreak

Saigon said:


> *Why do people hate Liberals?*



Because liberals hate everyone else.  It's normal to return hate for hate.


----------



## ChrisL

I hate them because of their overall attitudes in general, their constant whining about OUR rights, their wanting to give up their rights to the government (well go ahead - leave the rest of us alone), their lies and mistruths, their shady behaviors, etc.  Lots of reasons.  Just don't like them or their views in most instances, although I've met a few who were okay.  I prefer people who are more in the middle of the road than from either goofy side though.


----------



## midcan5

This thread is so long, I've posted in it several times but what the heck a few more thoughts. While I call myself liberal progressive, I am in life more conservative in the old fashion sense than today's' conservatives. Conservatives today are all about tribalism and defining the enemy, add in resentment and you pretty much have covered them. I also find in close friends who claim this new conservative mantle an unhappiness and sense of loss. It is reactive rather than positive. You must wonder if they didn't have some one to blame who would they be? 

"All conservatism begins with loss," Andrew Sullivan writes. "If we never knew loss, we would never feel the need to conserve." That’s why the first and still canonical conservative text is Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France," a lamentation on the uprooting of that country’s monarchical order. And that’s why America, as an experiment in modernity, hasn’t had many genuine conservatives in its history." 'A Guest of My Time' 'The Kennan Diaries,' by George F. Kennan

"Republicans, of course, cloak themselves in the rhetoric of freedom and necessity and express concern about future generations. That the beast they would slay ultimately translates to the lives of American citizens, including some of the most vulnerable who depend on government social programs to which they enjoy legal, political, and moral entitlement, is irrelevant. *Hatred of government is a disease with them. They loathe common purpose* and project, especially when channeled through the state. Their hatred of government, it seems to me, is tantamount to hatred of country." Steven Johnston Why Do Republicans Hate America? ~ The Contemporary Condition

"The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization. Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining."  Thomas Frank, What's the Matter With Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'

*And this is their hero today?  Huh!*

"What is patriotism? Let us begin with what patriotism is not. It is not patriotic to dodge the draft and to mock war heroes and their families. It is not patriotic to discriminate against active-duty members of the armed forces in one's companies, or to campaign to keep disabled veterans away from one's property. It is not patriotic to compare one's search for sexual partners in New York with the military service in Vietnam that one has dodged. It is not patriotic to avoid paying taxes, especially when American working families do pay. It is not patriotic to ask those working, taxpaying American families to finance one's own presidential campaign, and then to spend their contributions in one's own companies. It is not patriotic to admire foreign dictators. It is not patriotic to cultivate a relationship with Muammar Gaddafi; or to say that Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin are superior leaders. It is not patriotic to call upon Russia to intervene in an American presidential election. It is not patriotic to cite Russian propaganda at rallies." Timothy Snyder   On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century by Timothy Snyder


"Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance."  Eric Hoffer


----------



## Desperado

One reason is their move to give all prisoners the right to vote.


----------



## Cellblock2429

midcan5 said:


> This thread is so long, I've posted in it several times but what the heck a few more thoughts. While I call myself liberal progressive, I am in life more conservative in the old fashion sense than today's' conservatives. Conservatives today are all about tribalism and defining the enemy, add in resentment and you pretty much have covered them. I also find in close friends who claim this new conservative mantle an unhappiness and sense of loss. It is reactive rather than positive. You must wonder if they didn't have some one to blame who would they be?
> 
> "All conservatism begins with loss," Andrew Sullivan writes. "If we never knew loss, we would never feel the need to conserve." That’s why the first and still canonical conservative text is Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France," a lamentation on the uprooting of that country’s monarchical order. And that’s why America, as an experiment in modernity, hasn’t had many genuine conservatives in its history." 'A Guest of My Time' 'The Kennan Diaries,' by George F. Kennan
> 
> "Republicans, of course, cloak themselves in the rhetoric of freedom and necessity and express concern about future generations. That the beast they would slay ultimately translates to the lives of American citizens, including some of the most vulnerable who depend on government social programs to which they enjoy legal, political, and moral entitlement, is irrelevant. *Hatred of government is a disease with them. They loathe common purpose* and project, especially when channeled through the state. Their hatred of government, it seems to me, is tantamount to hatred of country." Steven Johnston Why Do Republicans Hate America? ~ The Contemporary Condition
> 
> "The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization. Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining."  Thomas Frank, What's the Matter With Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'
> 
> *And this is their hero today?  Huh!*
> 
> "What is patriotism? Let us begin with what patriotism is not. It is not patriotic to dodge the draft and to mock war heroes and their families. It is not patriotic to discriminate against active-duty members of the armed forces in one's companies, or to campaign to keep disabled veterans away from one's property. It is not patriotic to compare one's search for sexual partners in New York with the military service in Vietnam that one has dodged. It is not patriotic to avoid paying taxes, especially when American working families do pay. It is not patriotic to ask those working, taxpaying American families to finance one's own presidential campaign, and then to spend their contributions in one's own companies. It is not patriotic to admire foreign dictators. It is not patriotic to cultivate a relationship with Muammar Gaddafi; or to say that Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin are superior leaders. It is not patriotic to call upon Russia to intervene in an American presidential election. It is not patriotic to cite Russian propaganda at rallies." Timothy Snyder   On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century by Timothy Snyder
> 
> 
> "Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance."  Eric Hoffer


/——/ More liberal dribble


----------



## Votto

midcan5 said:


> This thread is so long, I've posted in it several times but what the heck a few more thoughts. While I call myself liberal progressive, I am in life more conservative in the old fashion sense than today's' conservatives. Conservatives today are all about tribalism and defining the enemy, add in resentment and you pretty much have covered them. I also find in close friends who claim this new conservative mantle an unhappiness and sense of loss. It is reactive rather than positive. You must wonder if they didn't have some one to blame who would they be?
> 
> "All conservatism begins with loss," Andrew Sullivan writes. "If we never knew loss, we would never feel the need to conserve." That’s why the first and still canonical conservative text is Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France," a lamentation on the uprooting of that country’s monarchical order. And that’s why America, as an experiment in modernity, hasn’t had many genuine conservatives in its history." 'A Guest of My Time' 'The Kennan Diaries,' by George F. Kennan
> 
> "Republicans, of course, cloak themselves in the rhetoric of freedom and necessity and express concern about future generations. That the beast they would slay ultimately translates to the lives of American citizens, including some of the most vulnerable who depend on government social programs to which they enjoy legal, political, and moral entitlement, is irrelevant. *Hatred of government is a disease with them. They loathe common purpose* and project, especially when channeled through the state. Their hatred of government, it seems to me, is tantamount to hatred of country." Steven Johnston Why Do Republicans Hate America? ~ The Contemporary Condition
> 
> "The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization. Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining."  Thomas Frank, What's the Matter With Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'
> 
> *And this is their hero today?  Huh!*
> 
> "What is patriotism? Let us begin with what patriotism is not. It is not patriotic to dodge the draft and to mock war heroes and their families. It is not patriotic to discriminate against active-duty members of the armed forces in one's companies, or to campaign to keep disabled veterans away from one's property. It is not patriotic to compare one's search for sexual partners in New York with the military service in Vietnam that one has dodged. It is not patriotic to avoid paying taxes, especially when American working families do pay. It is not patriotic to ask those working, taxpaying American families to finance one's own presidential campaign, and then to spend their contributions in one's own companies. It is not patriotic to admire foreign dictators. It is not patriotic to cultivate a relationship with Muammar Gaddafi; or to say that Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin are superior leaders. It is not patriotic to call upon Russia to intervene in an American presidential election. It is not patriotic to cite Russian propaganda at rallies." Timothy Snyder   On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century by Timothy Snyder
> 
> 
> "Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance."  Eric Hoffer



So you become conservative once you experience loss?

Well I would think that you would have become an ultra conservative after the 2016 elections.


----------



## Pete7469

Desperado said:


> One reason is their move to give all prisoners the right to vote.



More recently is their petulance and vindictive persecution of people who oppose their global collectivist "leaders". Their SJW assholes literally attacking people for wearing hats they don't like, their embrace of insane ideas like Occasional Cortex's "new green deal" and their refusal to accept the fact that America is prospering for the first time since 2006 because Trump wiped out almost every malignant action of their moonbat messiah.

I am delighted that they're obviously more miserable than ever. I hope Trump wins solidly in 2020, sweeps the House, picks up some senate seats. Maybe then they will finally do what they promised and move to some socialist hell hole like Venezuela, or just swim to Cuba. They're a cancer that isn't aborting itself fast enough.


.


----------



## Votto

Pete7469 said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> One reason is their move to give all prisoners the right to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More recently is their petulance and vindictive persecution of people who oppose their global collectivist "leaders". Their SJW assholes literally attacking people for wearing hats they don't like, their embrace of insane ideas like Occasional Cortex's "new green deal" and their refusal to accept the fact that America is prospering for the first time since 2006 because Trump wiped out almost every malignant action of their moonbat messiah.
> 
> I am delighted that they're obviously more miserable than ever. I hope Trump wins solidly in 2020, sweeps the House, picks up some senate seats. Maybe then they will finally do what they promised and move to some socialist hell hole like Venezuela, or just swim to Cuba. They're a cancer that isn't aborting itself fast enough.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


If it were not for the indoctrination in public schools, they would abort themselves out of existence.

Otherwise, their position on abortion would have to change.


----------



## Dale Smith

midcan5 said:


> This thread is so long, I've posted in it several times but what the heck a few more thoughts. While I call myself liberal progressive, I am in life more conservative in the old fashion sense than today's' conservatives. Conservatives today are all about tribalism and defining the enemy, add in resentment and you pretty much have covered them. I also find in close friends who claim this new conservative mantle an unhappiness and sense of loss. It is reactive rather than positive. You must wonder if they didn't have some one to blame who would they be?
> 
> "All conservatism begins with loss," Andrew Sullivan writes. "If we never knew loss, we would never feel the need to conserve." That’s why the first and still canonical conservative text is Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France," a lamentation on the uprooting of that country’s monarchical order. And that’s why America, as an experiment in modernity, hasn’t had many genuine conservatives in its history." 'A Guest of My Time' 'The Kennan Diaries,' by George F. Kennan
> 
> "Republicans, of course, cloak themselves in the rhetoric of freedom and necessity and express concern about future generations. That the beast they would slay ultimately translates to the lives of American citizens, including some of the most vulnerable who depend on government social programs to which they enjoy legal, political, and moral entitlement, is irrelevant. *Hatred of government is a disease with them. They loathe common purpose* and project, especially when channeled through the state. Their hatred of government, it seems to me, is tantamount to hatred of country." Steven Johnston Why Do Republicans Hate America? ~ The Contemporary Condition
> 
> "The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization. Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining."  Thomas Frank, What's the Matter With Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'
> 
> *And this is their hero today?  Huh!*
> 
> "What is patriotism? Let us begin with what patriotism is not. It is not patriotic to dodge the draft and to mock war heroes and their families. It is not patriotic to discriminate against active-duty members of the armed forces in one's companies, or to campaign to keep disabled veterans away from one's property. It is not patriotic to compare one's search for sexual partners in New York with the military service in Vietnam that one has dodged. It is not patriotic to avoid paying taxes, especially when American working families do pay. It is not patriotic to ask those working, taxpaying American families to finance one's own presidential campaign, and then to spend their contributions in one's own companies. It is not patriotic to admire foreign dictators. It is not patriotic to cultivate a relationship with Muammar Gaddafi; or to say that Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin are superior leaders. It is not patriotic to call upon Russia to intervene in an American presidential election. It is not patriotic to cite Russian propaganda at rallies." Timothy Snyder   On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century by Timothy Snyder
> 
> 
> "Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance."  Eric Hoffer


----------



## task0778

midcan5 said:


> This thread is so long, I've posted in it several times but what the heck a few more thoughts. While I call myself liberal progressive, I am in life more conservative in the old fashion sense than today's' conservatives. Conservatives today are all about tribalism and defining the enemy, add in resentment and you pretty much have covered them. I also find in close friends who claim this new conservative mantle an unhappiness and sense of loss. It is reactive rather than positive. You must wonder if they didn't have some one to blame who would they be?
> 
> "All conservatism begins with loss," Andrew Sullivan writes. "If we never knew loss, we would never feel the need to conserve." That’s why the first and still canonical conservative text is Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France," a lamentation on the uprooting of that country’s monarchical order. And that’s why America, as an experiment in modernity, hasn’t had many genuine conservatives in its history." 'A Guest of My Time' 'The Kennan Diaries,' by George F. Kennan
> 
> "Republicans, of course, cloak themselves in the rhetoric of freedom and necessity and express concern about future generations. That the beast they would slay ultimately translates to the lives of American citizens, including some of the most vulnerable who depend on government social programs to which they enjoy legal, political, and moral entitlement, is irrelevant. *Hatred of government is a disease with them. They loathe common purpose* and project, especially when channeled through the state. Their hatred of government, it seems to me, is tantamount to hatred of country." Steven Johnston Why Do Republicans Hate America? ~ The Contemporary Condition
> 
> "The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization. Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining."  Thomas Frank, What's the Matter With Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'
> 
> *And this is their hero today?  Huh!*
> 
> "What is patriotism? Let us begin with what patriotism is not. It is not patriotic to dodge the draft and to mock war heroes and their families. It is not patriotic to discriminate against active-duty members of the armed forces in one's companies, or to campaign to keep disabled veterans away from one's property. It is not patriotic to compare one's search for sexual partners in New York with the military service in Vietnam that one has dodged. It is not patriotic to avoid paying taxes, especially when American working families do pay. It is not patriotic to ask those working, taxpaying American families to finance one's own presidential campaign, and then to spend their contributions in one's own companies. It is not patriotic to admire foreign dictators. It is not patriotic to cultivate a relationship with Muammar Gaddafi; or to say that Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin are superior leaders. It is not patriotic to call upon Russia to intervene in an American presidential election. It is not patriotic to cite Russian propaganda at rallies." Timothy Snyder   On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century by Timothy Snyder
> 
> 
> "Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance."  Eric Hoffer



Nice anti-Trump diatribe, people were saying much the same about Obama's patriotism back then.   You might've gone off-track here a little bit, so I will too.   Tell me what's unpatriotic about opposing open borders and wanting a wall that isn't all that expensive that could assist in stemming the flow of illegal people, drugs, contraband, and human trafficking.  Seems to me the money would be better spent on a wall than on a ridiculous high-speed rail system that will never be profitable and will never move the needle one little bit when it comes to Climate Change.

_"Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance." Eric Hoffer_

Boy howdy, do I see a lot more passionate hatred against Trump and conservatives than the other way around.


----------



## sealybobo

ChrisL said:


> I hate them because of their overall attitudes in general, their constant whining about OUR rights, their wanting to give up their rights to the government (well go ahead - leave the rest of us alone), their lies and mistruths, their shady behaviors, etc.  Lots of reasons.  Just don't like them or their views in most instances, although I've met a few who were okay.  I prefer people who are more in the middle of the road than from either goofy side though.


Where is this woman been? She's clearly in her 40's now right?


----------



## OldLady

sealybobo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate them because of their overall attitudes in general, their constant whining about OUR rights, their wanting to give up their rights to the government (well go ahead - leave the rest of us alone), their lies and mistruths, their shady behaviors, etc.  Lots of reasons.  Just don't like them or their views in most instances, although I've met a few who were okay.  I prefer people who are more in the middle of the road than from either goofy side though.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this woman been? She's clearly in her 40's now right?
Click to expand...

She never came back after the day we flamed her out of the CDZ.  She asked for it, though.


----------



## LilOlLady

ChrisL said:


> I hate them because of their overall attitudes in general, their constant whining about OUR rights, their wanting to give up their rights to the government (well go ahead - leave the rest of us alone), their lies and mistruths, their shady behaviors, etc.  Lots of reasons.  Just don't like them or their views in most instances, although I've met a few who were okay.  I prefer people who are more in the middle of the road than from either goofy side though.


I am middle of the road on many issues. Extreme right of left becomes radical and dangerous


----------



## Dale Smith

OldLady said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate them because of their overall attitudes in general, their constant whining about OUR rights, their wanting to give up their rights to the government (well go ahead - leave the rest of us alone), their lies and mistruths, their shady behaviors, etc.  Lots of reasons.  Just don't like them or their views in most instances, although I've met a few who were okay.  I prefer people who are more in the middle of the road than from either goofy side though.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this woman been? She's clearly in her 40's now right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She never came back after the day we flamed her out of the CDZ.  She asked for it, though.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mindful

Dale Smith said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate them because of their overall attitudes in general, their constant whining about OUR rights, their wanting to give up their rights to the government (well go ahead - leave the rest of us alone), their lies and mistruths, their shady behaviors, etc.  Lots of reasons.  Just don't like them or their views in most instances, although I've met a few who were okay.  I prefer people who are more in the middle of the road than from either goofy side though.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this woman been? She's clearly in her 40's now right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She never came back after the day we flamed her out of the CDZ.  She asked for it, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



She was a very pretty girl.


----------



## sealybobo

Mindful said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate them because of their overall attitudes in general, their constant whining about OUR rights, their wanting to give up their rights to the government (well go ahead - leave the rest of us alone), their lies and mistruths, their shady behaviors, etc.  Lots of reasons.  Just don't like them or their views in most instances, although I've met a few who were okay.  I prefer people who are more in the middle of the road than from either goofy side though.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this woman been? She's clearly in her 40's now right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She never came back after the day we flamed her out of the CDZ.  She asked for it, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She was a very pretty girl.
Click to expand...

She used to say people in their 40's were old.  She was clearly in her 40's at the time but claimed she was 37.  That was more than 3 years ago so she must not want to come here as a 40 year old because she will have to explain that away.  

She wanted to be provocative and confrontational then got easily offended at anyone who attacked her as hard as she was attacking other people.  She used to be very mean but didn't like us being mean to her.

She first wasn't a right wing nut bag either.  I agreed with most of her political posts.  Then Trump won and she became one of his loyal idiots.


----------



## Mindful

sealybobo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate them because of their overall attitudes in general, their constant whining about OUR rights, their wanting to give up their rights to the government (well go ahead - leave the rest of us alone), their lies and mistruths, their shady behaviors, etc.  Lots of reasons.  Just don't like them or their views in most instances, although I've met a few who were okay.  I prefer people who are more in the middle of the road than from either goofy side though.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this woman been? She's clearly in her 40's now right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She never came back after the day we flamed her out of the CDZ.  She asked for it, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She was a very pretty girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She used to say people in their 40's were old.  She was clearly in her 40's at the time but claimed she was 37.  That was more than 3 years ago so she must not want to come here as a 40 year old because she will have to explain that away.
> 
> She wanted to be provocative and confrontational then got easily offended at anyone who attacked her as hard as she was attacking other people.  She used to be very mean but didn't like us being mean to her.
> 
> She first wasn't a right wing nut bag either.  I agreed with most of her political posts.  Then Trump won and she became one of his loyal idiots.
Click to expand...


I don't know her, and never engaged with her. I just said she was pretty, that's all.


----------



## sealybobo

Mindful said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this woman been? She's clearly in her 40's now right?
> 
> 
> 
> She never came back after the day we flamed her out of the CDZ.  She asked for it, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She was a very pretty girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She used to say people in their 40's were old.  She was clearly in her 40's at the time but claimed she was 37.  That was more than 3 years ago so she must not want to come here as a 40 year old because she will have to explain that away.
> 
> She wanted to be provocative and confrontational then got easily offended at anyone who attacked her as hard as she was attacking other people.  She used to be very mean but didn't like us being mean to her.
> 
> She first wasn't a right wing nut bag either.  I agreed with most of her political posts.  Then Trump won and she became one of his loyal idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know her, and never engaged with her. I just said she was pretty, that's all.
Click to expand...


Well sure she was pretty, on the outside.


----------



## OldLady

Dale Smith said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate them because of their overall attitudes in general, their constant whining about OUR rights, their wanting to give up their rights to the government (well go ahead - leave the rest of us alone), their lies and mistruths, their shady behaviors, etc.  Lots of reasons.  Just don't like them or their views in most instances, although I've met a few who were okay.  I prefer people who are more in the middle of the road than from either goofy side though.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this woman been? She's clearly in her 40's now right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She never came back after the day we flamed her out of the CDZ.  She asked for it, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Right.


----------



## OldLady

sealybobo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate them because of their overall attitudes in general, their constant whining about OUR rights, their wanting to give up their rights to the government (well go ahead - leave the rest of us alone), their lies and mistruths, their shady behaviors, etc.  Lots of reasons.  Just don't like them or their views in most instances, although I've met a few who were okay.  I prefer people who are more in the middle of the road than from either goofy side though.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this woman been? She's clearly in her 40's now right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She never came back after the day we flamed her out of the CDZ.  She asked for it, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She was a very pretty girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She used to say people in their 40's were old.  She was clearly in her 40's at the time but claimed she was 37.  That was more than 3 years ago so she must not want to come here as a 40 year old because she will have to explain that away.
> 
> She wanted to be provocative and confrontational then got easily offended at anyone who attacked her as hard as she was attacking other people.  She used to be very mean but didn't like us being mean to her.
> 
> She first wasn't a right wing nut bag either.  I agreed with most of her political posts.  Then Trump won and she became one of his loyal idiots.
Click to expand...

Her fights with April were epic.


----------



## Tinhatter

If you "don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives" then you have not been trying very hard to find it, nor looking very hard to see it. As it is all over Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Raddle, etc., I must conclude those rose-coloured glasses and blinders are limiting to your eyesight.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

ScienceRocks said:


> Their economic theory's are destructive.





> *Why do people hate Liberals?*


It's an American thing...but they hates us back so it's all good


----------



## Wry Catcher

Tinhatter said:


> If you "don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives" then you have not been trying very hard to find it, nor looking very hard to see it. As it is all over Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Raddle, etc., I must conclude those rose-coloured glasses and blinders are limiting to your eyesight.



I see, you are one of these:






It is NOT conservatism which Democrats, liberals, progressives, independents and Republicans who have been tossed under the bus as RINO's are rejecting, per se; it is Trump and McConnell and those members of Congress in the Republican Party who refuse to compromise, and have the attitude you have expressed.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Wry Catcher said:


> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you "don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives" then you have not been trying very hard to find it, nor looking very hard to see it. As it is all over Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Raddle, etc., I must conclude those rose-coloured glasses and blinders are limiting to your eyesight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, you are one of these:
> 
> View attachment 269714
> 
> It is NOT conservatism which Democrats, liberals, progressives, independents and Republicans who have been tossed under the bus as RINO's are rejecting, per se; it is Trump and McConnell and those member of Congress in the Republican Party who refuse to compromise, and have the attitude you have expressed.
Click to expand...

/——/ Why is it that democRATs never compromise with Republicans? They always demand we cave it to their liberal agenda.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Cellblock2429 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you "don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives" then you have not been trying very hard to find it, nor looking very hard to see it. As it is all over Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Raddle, etc., I must conclude those rose-coloured glasses and blinders are limiting to your eyesight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, you are one of these:
> 
> View attachment 269714
> 
> It is NOT conservatism which Democrats, liberals, progressives, independents and Republicans who have been tossed under the bus as RINO's are rejecting, per se; it is Trump and McConnell and those member of Congress in the Republican Party who refuse to compromise, and have the attitude you have expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Why is it that democRATs never compromise with Republicans? They always demand we cave it to their liberal agenda.
Click to expand...


That's the meme, and it's one more BIG LIE biddable fools (that b. you) continue to echo.  I don't know if you are stupid, rich or poor, gay or straight, married or not, white or black or in between.  What I do know is you are a jerk whose is socially toxic, lacks empathy and are stuck in a box and cannot think outside of it.


----------



## Mindful

Wry Catcher said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you "don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives" then you have not been trying very hard to find it, nor looking very hard to see it. As it is all over Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Raddle, etc., I must conclude those rose-coloured glasses and blinders are limiting to your eyesight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, you are one of these:
> 
> View attachment 269714
> 
> It is NOT conservatism which Democrats, liberals, progressives, independents and Republicans who have been tossed under the bus as RINO's are rejecting, per se; it is Trump and McConnell and those member of Congress in the Republican Party who refuse to compromise, and have the attitude you have expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Why is it that democRATs never compromise with Republicans? They always demand we cave it to their liberal agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the meme, and it's one more BIG LIE biddable fools (that b. you) continue to echo.  I don't know if you are stupid, rich or poor, gay or straight, married or not, white or black or in between.  What I do know is you are a jerk whose is socially toxic, lacks empathy and are stuck in a box and cannot think outside of it.
Click to expand...


I thought he was a bunch of pixels on a screen.


----------



## Tinhatter

Wry Catcher said:


> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you "don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives" then you have not been trying very hard to find it, nor looking very hard to see it. As it is all over Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Raddle, etc., I must conclude those rose-coloured glasses and blinders are limiting to your eyesight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, you are one of these:
> 
> View attachment 269714
> 
> It is NOT conservatism which Democrats, liberals, progressives, independents and Republicans who have been tossed under the bus as RINO's are rejecting, per se; it is Trump and McConnell and those members of Congress in the Republican Party who refuse to compromise, and have the attitude you have expressed.
Click to expand...


Pot calling the kettle black. Libtards invented the Ostrich Clan, where hypocrisy and tunnelvision reign surpreme:





Compromise with the Lefturds is much like the 'fifty-fifty relationship' touted by  feminazis....looks good til one reads the fine print...to discover it's all 95% their way! The compromise on the border wall was MIA from beginning to end. I'm not such a fan of Trump anymore, but to quote the Democrat theme song he is "the lesser of two evils". It's either Trump or the commie-socialist Libtards....an easy choice!


----------



## Wry Catcher

Tinhatter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you "don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives" then you have not been trying very hard to find it, nor looking very hard to see it. As it is all over Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Raddle, etc., I must conclude those rose-coloured glasses and blinders are limiting to your eyesight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, you are one of these:
> 
> View attachment 269714
> 
> It is NOT conservatism which Democrats, liberals, progressives, independents and Republicans who have been tossed under the bus as RINO's are rejecting, per se; it is Trump and McConnell and those members of Congress in the Republican Party who refuse to compromise, and have the attitude you have expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot calling the kettle black. Libtards invented the Ostrich Clan, where hypocrisy and tunnelvision reign surpreme:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compromise with the Lefturds is much like the 'fifty-fifty relationship' touted by  feminazis....looks good til one reads the fine print...to discover it's all 95% their way! The compromise on the border wall was MIA from beginning to end. I'm not such a fan of Trump anymore, but to quote the Democrat theme song he is "the lesser of two evils". It's either Trump or the commie-socialist Libtards....an easy choice!
Click to expand...


A ditto head ^^^^ aka a member of the Ostrich Party.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Wry Catcher said:


> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you "don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives" then you have not been trying very hard to find it, nor looking very hard to see it. As it is all over Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Raddle, etc., I must conclude those rose-coloured glasses and blinders are limiting to your eyesight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, you are one of these:
> 
> View attachment 269714
> 
> It is NOT conservatism which Democrats, liberals, progressives, independents and Republicans who have been tossed under the bus as RINO's are rejecting, per se; it is Trump and McConnell and those members of Congress in the Republican Party who refuse to compromise, and have the attitude you have expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot calling the kettle black. Libtards invented the Ostrich Clan, where hypocrisy and tunnelvision reign surpreme:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compromise with the Lefturds is much like the 'fifty-fifty relationship' touted by  feminazis....looks good til one reads the fine print...to discover it's all 95% their way! The compromise on the border wall was MIA from beginning to end. I'm not such a fan of Trump anymore, but to quote the Democrat theme song he is "the lesser of two evils". It's either Trump or the commie-socialist Libtards....an easy choice!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A ditto head ^^^^ aka a member of the Ostrich Party.
> 
> View attachment 269902
Click to expand...

/——-/ I’m a ditto head and my head is not buried in the sand. So enlighten me on your socialist agenda. You might make a convert. 
Smirk


----------



## DGS49

Today's "Liberals" are nothing of the sort.  And their total distortion of language (starting with the word, "Liberal") is possibly their biggest crime, because it explains away all the evil they perpetrate.

"Liberal" means open-minded.  Nothing more needs to be said.

"Wimmins' Health" refers to killing babies in the womb.

"Immigration reform" means tolerating and even welcoming massive illegal intrusions into our country by aliens.

Any criticism of anyone bearing the mantle of "color" is immediately branded as "racist," so that the substantive issues need not be addressed.

New slanders are invented continuously, mainly in order to avoid substantive debate: "Homo-phobe," "Denier," "Trans-phobe."  People who even suggest that we take our own existing immigration laws seriously are labeled "bigot," "racist" and "xenophobe."  And now, "Fascist."

People of accomplishment are constantly slandered and attacked ("You didn't build that"), and Liberals have raised ENVY to a viable political philosophy (fighting "inequality").

People who are simply of another political or legal philosophy are viciously slandered (Justice Kavanaugh, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz), so that there can be no honest debate about their political philosophy and its ramifications.

Liberals are evil.  They lie, cheat, slander, and always attempt to SILENCE those who disagree with them.  They are cheap (give nothing to charity), thieving, and want SOMEONE ELSE to pay for their destructive political and social programs.

Does that answer the question?


----------



## elektra

Saigon said:


> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.



You say you talked to idiotic conservatives but you dont mention idiotic liberals? 

You dont see contempt directed towards conservatives?

I see contempt directed against conservatives by you!

You about the biggest example of what you claim does not exist. 

No contempt by liberals. Here, in these ed threads, it is the liberal that hates first and foremost. Simply reading the titles of threads make that clear.

As does your hypocrisy expressed in your OP


----------



## emilynghiem

Frankeneinstein said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their economic theory's are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why do people hate Liberals?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an American thing...but they hates us back so it's all good
Click to expand...


Dear Frankeneinstein 
Given the Conservatives and Constitutionalists who believe the point of the Constitution
is to limit govt and prevent abuse of govt to establish, impose or "dictate" religious morals
against the beliefs, consent and free choice/liberty of individuals;
is it any wonder that Liberals are rejected and denounced who either don't believe in Constitutional laws or limits,
don't believe they are imposing beliefs or abusing Govt, but believe it is their right to vote in whatever policy they
believe should be established, regardless of the beliefs of others they don't recognize as inviolate.

It doesn't even require Liberals to CHANGE the beliefs to correspond to others.
But even to RECOGNIZE their beliefs and the beliefs of others are EQUALLY protected under law
from infringement by govt; even THAT would allow the imposition and offensive abuses to stop.

But the Liberals who can't even recognize political beliefs for what they are,
don't respect equal free choice to have, exercise and defend these from govt infringement,
and don't recognize that any others have VALID beliefs or rights to them,
THAT'S what causes opponents to take such a hard stance against them as violating laws and principles,
and causes them to "give up" trying to explain or work with Liberals dead set on abusing govt to establish their own beliefs.

This is TOTALLY against the spirit of Constitutional laws,
and not only do Liberals fail to respect these limits and recognize they are violating Constitutional principles,
but when Conservatives and Republicans are forced to try to CORRECT overreaches,
then they become implicated in the same problems that shouldn't have been created through govt in the first place!

So then Liberals can't tell the difference between what is Constitutional or not
when both sides end up having to breach Constitutional limits to FIX the breaches
that never should have occurred in the first place.

Of course this is blamed on Liberals, and if Liberals can't see how
all this mess violates Constitutional limits and duties of govt,
that's why the politics goes in circles in a vicious cycle
where the blame escalates.


----------



## Tinhatter

Wry Catcher said:


> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you "don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives" then you have not been trying very hard to find it, nor looking very hard to see it. As it is all over Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Raddle, etc., I must conclude those rose-coloured glasses and blinders are limiting to your eyesight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, you are one of these:
> 
> View attachment 269714
> 
> It is NOT conservatism which Democrats, liberals, progressives, independents and Republicans who have been tossed under the bus as RINO's are rejecting, per se; it is Trump and McConnell and those members of Congress in the Republican Party who refuse to compromise, and have the attitude you have expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot calling the kettle black. Libtards invented the Ostrich Clan, where hypocrisy and tunnelvision reign surpreme:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compromise with the Lefturds is much like the 'fifty-fifty relationship' touted by  feminazis....looks good til one reads the fine print...to discover it's all 95% their way! The compromise on the border wall was MIA from beginning to end. I'm not such a fan of Trump anymore, but to quote the Democrat theme song he is "the lesser of two evils". It's either Trump or the commie-socialist Libtards....an easy choice!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A ditto head ^^^^ aka a member of the Ostrich Party.
> 
> View attachment 269902
Click to expand...


Such a good comeback, and totally in-line with old school Commie Party propaganda tactic of accusing the opponent of what you know your side guilty of, to delay detection, and setup an easy 'out'. Republicans don't prescribe brainwashing with the verve of a hack doctor touting aspirin. Commies-socialists love your 'reeducation camps', and indoctrination of children as early as possible:


Your side has turned the public school system and colleges into factories mass-producing 'ditto heads', aka SJWs, NPCs, 'radicals', and assorted brainwashed retards. Yeah, keep on accusing your opponents of the dastardly tactics you and yours employ. Even such a well known disinformation technique will fool some dullards like the fanboys of AOC, but you could fart and convince the gullible it was Chanel #5! Those with an average or above IQ can see through such leftist ploys, so you're mostly just fooling yourself.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Tinhatter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you "don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives" then you have not been trying very hard to find it, nor looking very hard to see it. As it is all over Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Raddle, etc., I must conclude those rose-coloured glasses and blinders are limiting to your eyesight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, you are one of these:
> 
> View attachment 269714
> 
> It is NOT conservatism which Democrats, liberals, progressives, independents and Republicans who have been tossed under the bus as RINO's are rejecting, per se; it is Trump and McConnell and those members of Congress in the Republican Party who refuse to compromise, and have the attitude you have expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot calling the kettle black. Libtards invented the Ostrich Clan, where hypocrisy and tunnelvision reign surpreme:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compromise with the Lefturds is much like the 'fifty-fifty relationship' touted by  feminazis....looks good til one reads the fine print...to discover it's all 95% their way! The compromise on the border wall was MIA from beginning to end. I'm not such a fan of Trump anymore, but to quote the Democrat theme song he is "the lesser of two evils". It's either Trump or the commie-socialist Libtards....an easy choice!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A ditto head ^^^^ aka a member of the Ostrich Party.
> 
> View attachment 269902
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such a good comeback, and totally in-line with old school Commie Party propaganda tactic of accusing the opponent of what you know your side guilty of, to delay detection, and setup an easy 'out'. Republicans don't prescribe brainwashing with the verve of a hack doctor touting aspirin. Commies-socialists love your 'reeducation camps', and indoctrination of children as early as possible:
> 
> 
> Your side has turned the public school system and colleges into factories mass-producing 'ditto heads', aka SJWs, NPCs, 'radicals', and assorted brainwashed retards. Yeah, keep on accusing your opponents of the dastardly tactics you and yours employ. Even such a well known disinformation technique will fool some dullards like the fanboys of AOC, but you could fart and convince the gullible it was Chanel #5! Those with an average or above IQ can see through such leftist ploys, so you're mostly just fooling yourself.
Click to expand...


So angry, and so ignorant - it must suck to be you.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Wry Catcher said:


> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you "don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives" then you have not been trying very hard to find it, nor looking very hard to see it. As it is all over Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Raddle, etc., I must conclude those rose-coloured glasses and blinders are limiting to your eyesight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, you are one of these:
> 
> View attachment 269714
> 
> It is NOT conservatism which Democrats, liberals, progressives, independents and Republicans who have been tossed under the bus as RINO's are rejecting, per se; it is Trump and McConnell and those members of Congress in the Republican Party who refuse to compromise, and have the attitude you have expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot calling the kettle black. Libtards invented the Ostrich Clan, where hypocrisy and tunnelvision reign surpreme:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compromise with the Lefturds is much like the 'fifty-fifty relationship' touted by  feminazis....looks good til one reads the fine print...to discover it's all 95% their way! The compromise on the border wall was MIA from beginning to end. I'm not such a fan of Trump anymore, but to quote the Democrat theme song he is "the lesser of two evils". It's either Trump or the commie-socialist Libtards....an easy choice!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A ditto head ^^^^ aka a member of the Ostrich Party.
> 
> View attachment 269902
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such a good comeback, and totally in-line with old school Commie Party propaganda tactic of accusing the opponent of what you know your side guilty of, to delay detection, and setup an easy 'out'. Republicans don't prescribe brainwashing with the verve of a hack doctor touting aspirin. Commies-socialists love your 'reeducation camps', and indoctrination of children as early as possible:
> 
> 
> Your side has turned the public school system and colleges into factories mass-producing 'ditto heads', aka SJWs, NPCs, 'radicals', and assorted brainwashed retards. Yeah, keep on accusing your opponents of the dastardly tactics you and yours employ. Even such a well known disinformation technique will fool some dullards like the fanboys of AOC, but you could fart and convince the gullible it was Chanel #5! Those with an average or above IQ can see through such leftist ploys, so you're mostly just fooling yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So angry, and so ignorant - it must suck to be you.
Click to expand...

/—-/ Angry? Libs are the ones who seethe with rage and can't accept the results of an election.


----------



## petro

elektra said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say you talked to idiotic conservatives but you dont mention idiotic liberals?
> 
> You dont see contempt directed towards conservatives?
> 
> I see contempt directed against conservatives by you!
> 
> You about the biggest example of what you claim does not exist.
> 
> No contempt by liberals. Here, in these ed threads, it is the liberal that hates first and foremost. Simply reading the titles of threads make that clear.
> 
> As does your hypocrisy expressed in your OP
Click to expand...

The OP hasn't posted in almost 5 years.
Probably committed suicide after Trumps election.


----------



## emilynghiem

Tinhatter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you "don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives" then you have not been trying very hard to find it, nor looking very hard to see it. As it is all over Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Raddle, etc., I must conclude those rose-coloured glasses and blinders are limiting to your eyesight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, you are one of these:
> 
> View attachment 269714
> 
> It is NOT conservatism which Democrats, liberals, progressives, independents and Republicans who have been tossed under the bus as RINO's are rejecting, per se; it is Trump and McConnell and those members of Congress in the Republican Party who refuse to compromise, and have the attitude you have expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot calling the kettle black. Libtards invented the Ostrich Clan, where hypocrisy and tunnelvision reign surpreme:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compromise with the Lefturds is much like the 'fifty-fifty relationship' touted by  feminazis....looks good til one reads the fine print...to discover it's all 95% their way! The compromise on the border wall was MIA from beginning to end. I'm not such a fan of Trump anymore, but to quote the Democrat theme song he is "the lesser of two evils". It's either Trump or the commie-socialist Libtards....an easy choice!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A ditto head ^^^^ aka a member of the Ostrich Party.
> 
> View attachment 269902
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such a good comeback, and totally in-line with old school Commie Party propaganda tactic of accusing the opponent of what you know your side guilty of, to delay detection, and setup an easy 'out'. Republicans don't prescribe brainwashing with the verve of a hack doctor touting aspirin. Commies-socialists love your 'reeducation camps', and indoctrination of children as early as possible:
> 
> 
> Your side has turned the public school system and colleges into factories mass-producing 'ditto heads', aka SJWs, NPCs, 'radicals', and assorted brainwashed retards. Yeah, keep on accusing your opponents of the dastardly tactics you and yours employ. Even such a well known disinformation technique will fool some dullards like the fanboys of AOC, but you could fart and convince the gullible it was Chanel #5! Those with an average or above IQ can see through such leftist ploys, so you're mostly just fooling yourself.
Click to expand...


Dear Tinhatter Wry Catcher
Any parties, including Libertarians Constitutionists and Green Party members,
are going through the same politics where bigger bullies are competing to
oppress and control for sake of agenda.

That's not enough to distinguish what is the DIFFERENCE
between Conservative Republicans vs. Liberal Democrats.

A MAJOR reason for differences is there are more Conservatives
Christians and Constitutionalists among the REPUBLICANS who
believe in using either Christian scriptural laws/authority
and/or Constitutional laws principles and authority to
CHECK AGAINST erroneous or abusive policies.

Democrats and Liberals generally don't give the same religious credence
to laws and authority as the rightwing believers do. The Liberals Democrats
Greens and Progressives tend to rely on party and political power to enforce
what they want, they don't rely on Constitutional arguments as Conservatives do.

The DIFFERENCE this makes
1. there is no Constitutional check on what liberals will push through govt
because they don't believe in limits but have trouble distinguishing any difference
between local state or federal laws govt and authority. anything goes as long as
it gets voted in or ruled on by a judge in a court.

2. members of liberal parties don't have the same system of checking
each other, or govt, or their party leaders by citing the Constitution (or Christian
scriptures in the case of rebuking a fellow Christian)

So there is also no check within the party and between members
as you have with Conservatives Christians and Constitutionalists
who respond to checks back and forth based on common commitment
to these principles they hold to be a shared responsibility to enforce among
fellow believers

3. last, this leads to a difference in EMPOWERMENT and AUTHORITY.
Conservatives and Christians who use their own church, nonprofit or business institutions
to run their own programs and policies don't rely on govt for that and many are appalled threatened or violated by being forced to give up this freedom to govt to regulate by coercion.

The liberals who don't have the same organizations experience or capacity to manage their own programs directly end up not only depending and lobbying for govt to be in charge,
but they teach others to depend on govt and party. They can't very well teach anyone else to fish or manage for themselves if they don't have that ability to do that or see this as a choice.

Unfortunately this unequal access to authority and knowledge of the law
not only keeps economic and political disparity going, but it causes the
current political conflicts and environment of trying to force independent
communities and citizens "to give up their freedom" and pay taxes to GOVT
to manage these programs since not everyone has equal ability yet.

So it becomes a vicious cycle of not only keep people oppressed and disenfranchised,
but moving BACKWARD by forcing others to start paying and depending on govt
(instead of moving FORWARD and empowering MORE people to govern themselves
and their own programs directly themselves to maximize democratic ownership).

The good thing about liberals and democrats is demanding INCLUSION and not just keeping the same monopolies going; but the WRONG way to change this is to push everything through govt which isn't equipped to manage that level of diversity and
democratic representation on a grassroots scale as needed to fully include all people.
Instead, going through govt should be used to set up FACILITIES in every district to
TEACH self government, ownership and management so people DO become
INDEPENDENT not dependent on govt.  It's fine to go through govt to make sure
there are organized systems of representing everyone, but from there, districts should be free to decide and manage their own policies and programs.

We need both inclusion of people of ALL levels of education and status,
but also an organized system of training people in self management and govt
so they can develop independently, not stay stuck as pawns dependent on govt.


----------



## Tinhatter

emilynghiem said:


> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you "don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives" then you have not been trying very hard to find it, nor looking very hard to see it. As it is all over Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Raddle, etc., I must conclude those rose-coloured glasses and blinders are limiting to your eyesight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, you are one of these:
> 
> View attachment 269714
> 
> It is NOT conservatism which Democrats, liberals, progressives, independents and Republicans who have been tossed under the bus as RINO's are rejecting, per se; it is Trump and McConnell and those members of Congress in the Republican Party who refuse to compromise, and have the attitude you have expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot calling the kettle black. Libtards invented the Ostrich Clan, where hypocrisy and tunnelvision reign surpreme:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compromise with the Lefturds is much like the 'fifty-fifty relationship' touted by  feminazis....looks good til one reads the fine print...to discover it's all 95% their way! The compromise on the border wall was MIA from beginning to end. I'm not such a fan of Trump anymore, but to quote the Democrat theme song he is "the lesser of two evils". It's either Trump or the commie-socialist Libtards....an easy choice!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A ditto head ^^^^ aka a member of the Ostrich Party.
> 
> View attachment 269902
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such a good comeback, and totally in-line with old school Commie Party propaganda tactic of accusing the opponent of what you know your side guilty of, to delay detection, and setup an easy 'out'. Republicans don't prescribe brainwashing with the verve of a hack doctor touting aspirin. Commies-socialists love your 'reeducation camps', and indoctrination of children as early as possible:
> 
> 
> Your side has turned the public school system and colleges into factories mass-producing 'ditto heads', aka SJWs, NPCs, 'radicals', and assorted brainwashed retards. Yeah, keep on accusing your opponents of the dastardly tactics you and yours employ. Even such a well known disinformation technique will fool some dullards like the fanboys of AOC, but you could fart and convince the gullible it was Chanel #5! Those with an average or above IQ can see through such leftist ploys, so you're mostly just fooling yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Tinhatter Wry Catcher
> Any parties, including Libertarians Constitutionists and Green Party members,
> are going through the same politics where bigger bullies are competing to
> oppress and control for sake of agenda.
> 
> That's not enough to distinguish what is the DIFFERENCE
> between Conservative Republicans vs. Liberal Democrats.
> 
> A MAJOR reason for differences is there are more Conservatives
> Christians and Constitutionalists among the REPUBLICANS who
> believe in using either Christian scriptural laws/authority
> and/or Constitutional laws principles and authority to
> CHECK AGAINST erroneous or abusive policies.
> 
> Democrats and Liberals generally don't give the same religious credence
> to laws and authority as the rightwing believers do. The Liberals Democrats
> Greens and Progressives tend to rely on party and political power to enforce
> what they want, they don't rely on Constitutional arguments as Conservatives do.
> 
> The DIFFERENCE this makes
> 1. there is no Constitutional check on what liberals will push through govt
> because they don't believe in limits but have trouble distinguishing any difference
> between local state or federal laws govt and authority. anything goes as long as
> it gets voted in or ruled on by a judge in a court.
> 
> 2. members of liberal parties don't have the same system of checking
> each other, or govt, or their party leaders by citing the Constitution (or Christian
> scriptures in the case of rebuking a fellow Christian)
> 
> So there is also no check within the party and between members
> as you have with Conservatives Christians and Constitutionalists
> who respond to checks back and forth based on common commitment
> to these principles they hold to be a shared responsibility to enforce among
> fellow believers
> 
> 3. last, this leads to a difference in EMPOWERMENT and AUTHORITY.
> Conservatives and Christians who use their own church, nonprofit or business institutions
> to run their own programs and policies don't rely on govt for that and many are appalled threatened or violated by being forced to give up this freedom to govt to regulate by coercion.
> 
> The liberals who don't have the same organizations experience or capacity to manage their own programs directly end up not only depending and lobbying for govt to be in charge,
> but they teach others to depend on govt and party. They can't very well teach anyone else to fish or manage for themselves if they don't have that ability to do that or see this as a choice.
> 
> Unfortunately this unequal access to authority and knowledge of the law
> not only keeps economic and political disparity going, but it causes the
> current political conflicts and environment of trying to force independent
> communities and citizens "to give up their freedom" and pay taxes to GOVT
> to manage these programs since not everyone has equal ability yet.
> 
> So it becomes a vicious cycle of not only keep people oppressed and disenfranchised,
> but moving BACKWARD by forcing others to start paying and depending on govt
> (instead of moving FORWARD and empowering MORE people to govern themselves
> and their own programs directly themselves to maximize democratic ownership).
> 
> The good thing about liberals and democrats is demanding INCLUSION and not just keeping the same monopolies going; but the WRONG way to change this is to push everything through govt which isn't equipped to manage that level of diversity and
> democratic representation on a grassroots scale as needed to fully include all people.
> Instead, going through govt should be used to set up FACILITIES in every district to
> TEACH self government, ownership and management so people DO become
> INDEPENDENT not dependent on govt.  It's fine to go through govt to make sure
> there are organized systems of representing everyone, but from there, districts should be free to decide and manage their own policies and programs.
> 
> We need both inclusion of people of ALL levels of education and status,
> but also an organized system of training people in self management and govt
> so they can develop independently, not stay stuck as pawns dependent on govt.
Click to expand...


About the only thing you said that I would not agree with is that I do not see liberals and democrats now "demanding INCLUSION", so much as demanding EXCLUSION of everyone else. I see no real attempt at compromise anymore. About the only thing I do see (and have seen since Trump took office), is a herd of shrill sore losers determined to monkeywrench the current regime by any means necessary, use censorship to gut 'Free Speech', and embrace commie/socialist tactics to try and force a victory in 2020.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

This pretty much answers your question 

Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers.

Camille Paglia


----------



## MaryL

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


I am a ex Dem liberal. I don't hate Liberals anymore than I hate my left arm . What this boils down to is  fearing abusive people that steal your ideology and  pose themselves as something they aren't and somehow magically get a free pass . I don't side with these childish  nihilistic contrarians and I don't care what they call themselves.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Tinhatter said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, you are one of these:
> 
> View attachment 269714
> 
> It is NOT conservatism which Democrats, liberals, progressives, independents and Republicans who have been tossed under the bus as RINO's are rejecting, per se; it is Trump and McConnell and those members of Congress in the Republican Party who refuse to compromise, and have the attitude you have expressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pot calling the kettle black. Libtards invented the Ostrich Clan, where hypocrisy and tunnelvision reign surpreme:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compromise with the Lefturds is much like the 'fifty-fifty relationship' touted by  feminazis....looks good til one reads the fine print...to discover it's all 95% their way! The compromise on the border wall was MIA from beginning to end. I'm not such a fan of Trump anymore, but to quote the Democrat theme song he is "the lesser of two evils". It's either Trump or the commie-socialist Libtards....an easy choice!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A ditto head ^^^^ aka a member of the Ostrich Party.
> 
> View attachment 269902
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such a good comeback, and totally in-line with old school Commie Party propaganda tactic of accusing the opponent of what you know your side guilty of, to delay detection, and setup an easy 'out'. Republicans don't prescribe brainwashing with the verve of a hack doctor touting aspirin. Commies-socialists love your 'reeducation camps', and indoctrination of children as early as possible:
> 
> 
> Your side has turned the public school system and colleges into factories mass-producing 'ditto heads', aka SJWs, NPCs, 'radicals', and assorted brainwashed retards. Yeah, keep on accusing your opponents of the dastardly tactics you and yours employ. Even such a well known disinformation technique will fool some dullards like the fanboys of AOC, but you could fart and convince the gullible it was Chanel #5! Those with an average or above IQ can see through such leftist ploys, so you're mostly just fooling yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Tinhatter Wry Catcher
> Any parties, including Libertarians Constitutionists and Green Party members,
> are going through the same politics where bigger bullies are competing to
> oppress and control for sake of agenda.
> 
> That's not enough to distinguish what is the DIFFERENCE
> between Conservative Republicans vs. Liberal Democrats.
> 
> A MAJOR reason for differences is there are more Conservatives
> Christians and Constitutionalists among the REPUBLICANS who
> believe in using either Christian scriptural laws/authority
> and/or Constitutional laws principles and authority to
> CHECK AGAINST erroneous or abusive policies.
> 
> Democrats and Liberals generally don't give the same religious credence
> to laws and authority as the rightwing believers do. The Liberals Democrats
> Greens and Progressives tend to rely on party and political power to enforce
> what they want, they don't rely on Constitutional arguments as Conservatives do.
> 
> The DIFFERENCE this makes
> 1. there is no Constitutional check on what liberals will push through govt
> because they don't believe in limits but have trouble distinguishing any difference
> between local state or federal laws govt and authority. anything goes as long as
> it gets voted in or ruled on by a judge in a court.
> 
> 2. members of liberal parties don't have the same system of checking
> each other, or govt, or their party leaders by citing the Constitution (or Christian
> scriptures in the case of rebuking a fellow Christian)
> 
> So there is also no check within the party and between members
> as you have with Conservatives Christians and Constitutionalists
> who respond to checks back and forth based on common commitment
> to these principles they hold to be a shared responsibility to enforce among
> fellow believers
> 
> 3. last, this leads to a difference in EMPOWERMENT and AUTHORITY.
> Conservatives and Christians who use their own church, nonprofit or business institutions
> to run their own programs and policies don't rely on govt for that and many are appalled threatened or violated by being forced to give up this freedom to govt to regulate by coercion.
> 
> The liberals who don't have the same organizations experience or capacity to manage their own programs directly end up not only depending and lobbying for govt to be in charge,
> but they teach others to depend on govt and party. They can't very well teach anyone else to fish or manage for themselves if they don't have that ability to do that or see this as a choice.
> 
> Unfortunately this unequal access to authority and knowledge of the law
> not only keeps economic and political disparity going, but it causes the
> current political conflicts and environment of trying to force independent
> communities and citizens "to give up their freedom" and pay taxes to GOVT
> to manage these programs since not everyone has equal ability yet.
> 
> So it becomes a vicious cycle of not only keep people oppressed and disenfranchised,
> but moving BACKWARD by forcing others to start paying and depending on govt
> (instead of moving FORWARD and empowering MORE people to govern themselves
> and their own programs directly themselves to maximize democratic ownership).
> 
> The good thing about liberals and democrats is demanding INCLUSION and not just keeping the same monopolies going; but the WRONG way to change this is to push everything through govt which isn't equipped to manage that level of diversity and
> democratic representation on a grassroots scale as needed to fully include all people.
> Instead, going through govt should be used to set up FACILITIES in every district to
> TEACH self government, ownership and management so people DO become
> INDEPENDENT not dependent on govt.  It's fine to go through govt to make sure
> there are organized systems of representing everyone, but from there, districts should be free to decide and manage their own policies and programs.
> 
> We need both inclusion of people of ALL levels of education and status,
> but also an organized system of training people in self management and govt
> so they can develop independently, not stay stuck as pawns dependent on govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About the only thing you said that I would not agree with is that I do not see liberals and democrats now "demanding INCLUSION", so much as demanding EXCLUSION of everyone else. I see no real attempt at compromise anymore. About the only thing I do see (and have seen since Trump took office), is a herd of shrill sore losers determined to monkeywrench the current regime by any means necessary, use censorship to gut 'Free Speech', and embrace commie/socialist tactics to try and force a victory in 2020.
Click to expand...


Maybe what you see is the result of the blinders placed on your face by watching Fox News and reading RW tabloids?  Open up you mind, unlock the box in which you've been place and think for yourself.


----------



## Death Angel

Saigon said:


> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives



Dont be an idiot!


----------



## Cellblock2429

Wry Catcher said:


> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pot calling the kettle black. Libtards invented the Ostrich Clan, where hypocrisy and tunnelvision reign surpreme:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compromise with the Lefturds is much like the 'fifty-fifty relationship' touted by  feminazis....looks good til one reads the fine print...to discover it's all 95% their way! The compromise on the border wall was MIA from beginning to end. I'm not such a fan of Trump anymore, but to quote the Democrat theme song he is "the lesser of two evils". It's either Trump or the commie-socialist Libtards....an easy choice!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A ditto head ^^^^ aka a member of the Ostrich Party.
> 
> View attachment 269902
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such a good comeback, and totally in-line with old school Commie Party propaganda tactic of accusing the opponent of what you know your side guilty of, to delay detection, and setup an easy 'out'. Republicans don't prescribe brainwashing with the verve of a hack doctor touting aspirin. Commies-socialists love your 'reeducation camps', and indoctrination of children as early as possible:
> 
> 
> Your side has turned the public school system and colleges into factories mass-producing 'ditto heads', aka SJWs, NPCs, 'radicals', and assorted brainwashed retards. Yeah, keep on accusing your opponents of the dastardly tactics you and yours employ. Even such a well known disinformation technique will fool some dullards like the fanboys of AOC, but you could fart and convince the gullible it was Chanel #5! Those with an average or above IQ can see through such leftist ploys, so you're mostly just fooling yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Tinhatter Wry Catcher
> Any parties, including Libertarians Constitutionists and Green Party members,
> are going through the same politics where bigger bullies are competing to
> oppress and control for sake of agenda.
> 
> That's not enough to distinguish what is the DIFFERENCE
> between Conservative Republicans vs. Liberal Democrats.
> 
> A MAJOR reason for differences is there are more Conservatives
> Christians and Constitutionalists among the REPUBLICANS who
> believe in using either Christian scriptural laws/authority
> and/or Constitutional laws principles and authority to
> CHECK AGAINST erroneous or abusive policies.
> 
> Democrats and Liberals generally don't give the same religious credence
> to laws and authority as the rightwing believers do. The Liberals Democrats
> Greens and Progressives tend to rely on party and political power to enforce
> what they want, they don't rely on Constitutional arguments as Conservatives do.
> 
> The DIFFERENCE this makes
> 1. there is no Constitutional check on what liberals will push through govt
> because they don't believe in limits but have trouble distinguishing any difference
> between local state or federal laws govt and authority. anything goes as long as
> it gets voted in or ruled on by a judge in a court.
> 
> 2. members of liberal parties don't have the same system of checking
> each other, or govt, or their party leaders by citing the Constitution (or Christian
> scriptures in the case of rebuking a fellow Christian)
> 
> So there is also no check within the party and between members
> as you have with Conservatives Christians and Constitutionalists
> who respond to checks back and forth based on common commitment
> to these principles they hold to be a shared responsibility to enforce among
> fellow believers
> 
> 3. last, this leads to a difference in EMPOWERMENT and AUTHORITY.
> Conservatives and Christians who use their own church, nonprofit or business institutions
> to run their own programs and policies don't rely on govt for that and many are appalled threatened or violated by being forced to give up this freedom to govt to regulate by coercion.
> 
> The liberals who don't have the same organizations experience or capacity to manage their own programs directly end up not only depending and lobbying for govt to be in charge,
> but they teach others to depend on govt and party. They can't very well teach anyone else to fish or manage for themselves if they don't have that ability to do that or see this as a choice.
> 
> Unfortunately this unequal access to authority and knowledge of the law
> not only keeps economic and political disparity going, but it causes the
> current political conflicts and environment of trying to force independent
> communities and citizens "to give up their freedom" and pay taxes to GOVT
> to manage these programs since not everyone has equal ability yet.
> 
> So it becomes a vicious cycle of not only keep people oppressed and disenfranchised,
> but moving BACKWARD by forcing others to start paying and depending on govt
> (instead of moving FORWARD and empowering MORE people to govern themselves
> and their own programs directly themselves to maximize democratic ownership).
> 
> The good thing about liberals and democrats is demanding INCLUSION and not just keeping the same monopolies going; but the WRONG way to change this is to push everything through govt which isn't equipped to manage that level of diversity and
> democratic representation on a grassroots scale as needed to fully include all people.
> Instead, going through govt should be used to set up FACILITIES in every district to
> TEACH self government, ownership and management so people DO become
> INDEPENDENT not dependent on govt.  It's fine to go through govt to make sure
> there are organized systems of representing everyone, but from there, districts should be free to decide and manage their own policies and programs.
> 
> We need both inclusion of people of ALL levels of education and status,
> but also an organized system of training people in self management and govt
> so they can develop independently, not stay stuck as pawns dependent on govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About the only thing you said that I would not agree with is that I do not see liberals and democrats now "demanding INCLUSION", so much as demanding EXCLUSION of everyone else. I see no real attempt at compromise anymore. About the only thing I do see (and have seen since Trump took office), is a herd of shrill sore losers determined to monkeywrench the current regime by any means necessary, use censorship to gut 'Free Speech', and embrace commie/socialist tactics to try and force a victory in 2020.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe what you see is the result of the blinders placed on your face by watching Fox News and reading RW tabloids?  Open up you mind, unlock the box in which you've been place and think for yourself.
Click to expand...

/—-/ Open my mind to Fake News and lopsided propaganda? Why would I do that? I get all my left wing news from you libtards on USMB. I can’t stomach any more.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Cellblock2429 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A ditto head ^^^^ aka a member of the Ostrich Party.
> 
> View attachment 269902
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such a good comeback, and totally in-line with old school Commie Party propaganda tactic of accusing the opponent of what you know your side guilty of, to delay detection, and setup an easy 'out'. Republicans don't prescribe brainwashing with the verve of a hack doctor touting aspirin. Commies-socialists love your 'reeducation camps', and indoctrination of children as early as possible:
> 
> 
> Your side has turned the public school system and colleges into factories mass-producing 'ditto heads', aka SJWs, NPCs, 'radicals', and assorted brainwashed retards. Yeah, keep on accusing your opponents of the dastardly tactics you and yours employ. Even such a well known disinformation technique will fool some dullards like the fanboys of AOC, but you could fart and convince the gullible it was Chanel #5! Those with an average or above IQ can see through such leftist ploys, so you're mostly just fooling yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Tinhatter Wry Catcher
> Any parties, including Libertarians Constitutionists and Green Party members,
> are going through the same politics where bigger bullies are competing to
> oppress and control for sake of agenda.
> 
> That's not enough to distinguish what is the DIFFERENCE
> between Conservative Republicans vs. Liberal Democrats.
> 
> A MAJOR reason for differences is there are more Conservatives
> Christians and Constitutionalists among the REPUBLICANS who
> believe in using either Christian scriptural laws/authority
> and/or Constitutional laws principles and authority to
> CHECK AGAINST erroneous or abusive policies.
> 
> Democrats and Liberals generally don't give the same religious credence
> to laws and authority as the rightwing believers do. The Liberals Democrats
> Greens and Progressives tend to rely on party and political power to enforce
> what they want, they don't rely on Constitutional arguments as Conservatives do.
> 
> The DIFFERENCE this makes
> 1. there is no Constitutional check on what liberals will push through govt
> because they don't believe in limits but have trouble distinguishing any difference
> between local state or federal laws govt and authority. anything goes as long as
> it gets voted in or ruled on by a judge in a court.
> 
> 2. members of liberal parties don't have the same system of checking
> each other, or govt, or their party leaders by citing the Constitution (or Christian
> scriptures in the case of rebuking a fellow Christian)
> 
> So there is also no check within the party and between members
> as you have with Conservatives Christians and Constitutionalists
> who respond to checks back and forth based on common commitment
> to these principles they hold to be a shared responsibility to enforce among
> fellow believers
> 
> 3. last, this leads to a difference in EMPOWERMENT and AUTHORITY.
> Conservatives and Christians who use their own church, nonprofit or business institutions
> to run their own programs and policies don't rely on govt for that and many are appalled threatened or violated by being forced to give up this freedom to govt to regulate by coercion.
> 
> The liberals who don't have the same organizations experience or capacity to manage their own programs directly end up not only depending and lobbying for govt to be in charge,
> but they teach others to depend on govt and party. They can't very well teach anyone else to fish or manage for themselves if they don't have that ability to do that or see this as a choice.
> 
> Unfortunately this unequal access to authority and knowledge of the law
> not only keeps economic and political disparity going, but it causes the
> current political conflicts and environment of trying to force independent
> communities and citizens "to give up their freedom" and pay taxes to GOVT
> to manage these programs since not everyone has equal ability yet.
> 
> So it becomes a vicious cycle of not only keep people oppressed and disenfranchised,
> but moving BACKWARD by forcing others to start paying and depending on govt
> (instead of moving FORWARD and empowering MORE people to govern themselves
> and their own programs directly themselves to maximize democratic ownership).
> 
> The good thing about liberals and democrats is demanding INCLUSION and not just keeping the same monopolies going; but the WRONG way to change this is to push everything through govt which isn't equipped to manage that level of diversity and
> democratic representation on a grassroots scale as needed to fully include all people.
> Instead, going through govt should be used to set up FACILITIES in every district to
> TEACH self government, ownership and management so people DO become
> INDEPENDENT not dependent on govt.  It's fine to go through govt to make sure
> there are organized systems of representing everyone, but from there, districts should be free to decide and manage their own policies and programs.
> 
> We need both inclusion of people of ALL levels of education and status,
> but also an organized system of training people in self management and govt
> so they can develop independently, not stay stuck as pawns dependent on govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About the only thing you said that I would not agree with is that I do not see liberals and democrats now "demanding INCLUSION", so much as demanding EXCLUSION of everyone else. I see no real attempt at compromise anymore. About the only thing I do see (and have seen since Trump took office), is a herd of shrill sore losers determined to monkeywrench the current regime by any means necessary, use censorship to gut 'Free Speech', and embrace commie/socialist tactics to try and force a victory in 2020.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe what you see is the result of the blinders placed on your face by watching Fox News and reading RW tabloids?  Open up you mind, unlock the box in which you've been place and think for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /—-/ Open my mind to Fake News and lopsided propaganda? Why would I do that? I get all my left wing news from you libtards on USMB. I can’t stomach any more.
Click to expand...


No doubt, ignorance is bliss and you can't risk any idea or opinion which confronts what your handlers have told you to believe.  I get it, curiosity is too dangerous, and might cause you to think outside the box in which you've been told to reside.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Wry Catcher said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such a good comeback, and totally in-line with old school Commie Party propaganda tactic of accusing the opponent of what you know your side guilty of, to delay detection, and setup an easy 'out'. Republicans don't prescribe brainwashing with the verve of a hack doctor touting aspirin. Commies-socialists love your 'reeducation camps', and indoctrination of children as early as possible:
> 
> 
> Your side has turned the public school system and colleges into factories mass-producing 'ditto heads', aka SJWs, NPCs, 'radicals', and assorted brainwashed retards. Yeah, keep on accusing your opponents of the dastardly tactics you and yours employ. Even such a well known disinformation technique will fool some dullards like the fanboys of AOC, but you could fart and convince the gullible it was Chanel #5! Those with an average or above IQ can see through such leftist ploys, so you're mostly just fooling yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tinhatter Wry Catcher
> Any parties, including Libertarians Constitutionists and Green Party members,
> are going through the same politics where bigger bullies are competing to
> oppress and control for sake of agenda.
> 
> That's not enough to distinguish what is the DIFFERENCE
> between Conservative Republicans vs. Liberal Democrats.
> 
> A MAJOR reason for differences is there are more Conservatives
> Christians and Constitutionalists among the REPUBLICANS who
> believe in using either Christian scriptural laws/authority
> and/or Constitutional laws principles and authority to
> CHECK AGAINST erroneous or abusive policies.
> 
> Democrats and Liberals generally don't give the same religious credence
> to laws and authority as the rightwing believers do. The Liberals Democrats
> Greens and Progressives tend to rely on party and political power to enforce
> what they want, they don't rely on Constitutional arguments as Conservatives do.
> 
> The DIFFERENCE this makes
> 1. there is no Constitutional check on what liberals will push through govt
> because they don't believe in limits but have trouble distinguishing any difference
> between local state or federal laws govt and authority. anything goes as long as
> it gets voted in or ruled on by a judge in a court.
> 
> 2. members of liberal parties don't have the same system of checking
> each other, or govt, or their party leaders by citing the Constitution (or Christian
> scriptures in the case of rebuking a fellow Christian)
> 
> So there is also no check within the party and between members
> as you have with Conservatives Christians and Constitutionalists
> who respond to checks back and forth based on common commitment
> to these principles they hold to be a shared responsibility to enforce among
> fellow believers
> 
> 3. last, this leads to a difference in EMPOWERMENT and AUTHORITY.
> Conservatives and Christians who use their own church, nonprofit or business institutions
> to run their own programs and policies don't rely on govt for that and many are appalled threatened or violated by being forced to give up this freedom to govt to regulate by coercion.
> 
> The liberals who don't have the same organizations experience or capacity to manage their own programs directly end up not only depending and lobbying for govt to be in charge,
> but they teach others to depend on govt and party. They can't very well teach anyone else to fish or manage for themselves if they don't have that ability to do that or see this as a choice.
> 
> Unfortunately this unequal access to authority and knowledge of the law
> not only keeps economic and political disparity going, but it causes the
> current political conflicts and environment of trying to force independent
> communities and citizens "to give up their freedom" and pay taxes to GOVT
> to manage these programs since not everyone has equal ability yet.
> 
> So it becomes a vicious cycle of not only keep people oppressed and disenfranchised,
> but moving BACKWARD by forcing others to start paying and depending on govt
> (instead of moving FORWARD and empowering MORE people to govern themselves
> and their own programs directly themselves to maximize democratic ownership).
> 
> The good thing about liberals and democrats is demanding INCLUSION and not just keeping the same monopolies going; but the WRONG way to change this is to push everything through govt which isn't equipped to manage that level of diversity and
> democratic representation on a grassroots scale as needed to fully include all people.
> Instead, going through govt should be used to set up FACILITIES in every district to
> TEACH self government, ownership and management so people DO become
> INDEPENDENT not dependent on govt.  It's fine to go through govt to make sure
> there are organized systems of representing everyone, but from there, districts should be free to decide and manage their own policies and programs.
> 
> We need both inclusion of people of ALL levels of education and status,
> but also an organized system of training people in self management and govt
> so they can develop independently, not stay stuck as pawns dependent on govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About the only thing you said that I would not agree with is that I do not see liberals and democrats now "demanding INCLUSION", so much as demanding EXCLUSION of everyone else. I see no real attempt at compromise anymore. About the only thing I do see (and have seen since Trump took office), is a herd of shrill sore losers determined to monkeywrench the current regime by any means necessary, use censorship to gut 'Free Speech', and embrace commie/socialist tactics to try and force a victory in 2020.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe what you see is the result of the blinders placed on your face by watching Fox News and reading RW tabloids?  Open up you mind, unlock the box in which you've been place and think for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /—-/ Open my mind to Fake News and lopsided propaganda? Why would I do that? I get all my left wing news from you libtards on USMB. I can’t stomach any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt, ignorance is bliss and you can't risk any idea or opinion which confronts what your handlers have told you to believe.  I get it, curiosity is too dangerous, and might cause you to think outside the box in which you've been told to reside.
Click to expand...

/—-/ So how often to you watch Fox and listen to Rush and Sean? BTW they have CNN on at the gym and I can’t help but hear their buttsore BS.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Cellblock2429 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tinhatter Wry Catcher
> Any parties, including Libertarians Constitutionists and Green Party members,
> are going through the same politics where bigger bullies are competing to
> oppress and control for sake of agenda.
> 
> That's not enough to distinguish what is the DIFFERENCE
> between Conservative Republicans vs. Liberal Democrats.
> 
> A MAJOR reason for differences is there are more Conservatives
> Christians and Constitutionalists among the REPUBLICANS who
> believe in using either Christian scriptural laws/authority
> and/or Constitutional laws principles and authority to
> CHECK AGAINST erroneous or abusive policies.
> 
> Democrats and Liberals generally don't give the same religious credence
> to laws and authority as the rightwing believers do. The Liberals Democrats
> Greens and Progressives tend to rely on party and political power to enforce
> what they want, they don't rely on Constitutional arguments as Conservatives do.
> 
> The DIFFERENCE this makes
> 1. there is no Constitutional check on what liberals will push through govt
> because they don't believe in limits but have trouble distinguishing any difference
> between local state or federal laws govt and authority. anything goes as long as
> it gets voted in or ruled on by a judge in a court.
> 
> 2. members of liberal parties don't have the same system of checking
> each other, or govt, or their party leaders by citing the Constitution (or Christian
> scriptures in the case of rebuking a fellow Christian)
> 
> So there is also no check within the party and between members
> as you have with Conservatives Christians and Constitutionalists
> who respond to checks back and forth based on common commitment
> to these principles they hold to be a shared responsibility to enforce among
> fellow believers
> 
> 3. last, this leads to a difference in EMPOWERMENT and AUTHORITY.
> Conservatives and Christians who use their own church, nonprofit or business institutions
> to run their own programs and policies don't rely on govt for that and many are appalled threatened or violated by being forced to give up this freedom to govt to regulate by coercion.
> 
> The liberals who don't have the same organizations experience or capacity to manage their own programs directly end up not only depending and lobbying for govt to be in charge,
> but they teach others to depend on govt and party. They can't very well teach anyone else to fish or manage for themselves if they don't have that ability to do that or see this as a choice.
> 
> Unfortunately this unequal access to authority and knowledge of the law
> not only keeps economic and political disparity going, but it causes the
> current political conflicts and environment of trying to force independent
> communities and citizens "to give up their freedom" and pay taxes to GOVT
> to manage these programs since not everyone has equal ability yet.
> 
> So it becomes a vicious cycle of not only keep people oppressed and disenfranchised,
> but moving BACKWARD by forcing others to start paying and depending on govt
> (instead of moving FORWARD and empowering MORE people to govern themselves
> and their own programs directly themselves to maximize democratic ownership).
> 
> The good thing about liberals and democrats is demanding INCLUSION and not just keeping the same monopolies going; but the WRONG way to change this is to push everything through govt which isn't equipped to manage that level of diversity and
> democratic representation on a grassroots scale as needed to fully include all people.
> Instead, going through govt should be used to set up FACILITIES in every district to
> TEACH self government, ownership and management so people DO become
> INDEPENDENT not dependent on govt.  It's fine to go through govt to make sure
> there are organized systems of representing everyone, but from there, districts should be free to decide and manage their own policies and programs.
> 
> We need both inclusion of people of ALL levels of education and status,
> but also an organized system of training people in self management and govt
> so they can develop independently, not stay stuck as pawns dependent on govt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About the only thing you said that I would not agree with is that I do not see liberals and democrats now "demanding INCLUSION", so much as demanding EXCLUSION of everyone else. I see no real attempt at compromise anymore. About the only thing I do see (and have seen since Trump took office), is a herd of shrill sore losers determined to monkeywrench the current regime by any means necessary, use censorship to gut 'Free Speech', and embrace commie/socialist tactics to try and force a victory in 2020.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe what you see is the result of the blinders placed on your face by watching Fox News and reading RW tabloids?  Open up you mind, unlock the box in which you've been place and think for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /—-/ Open my mind to Fake News and lopsided propaganda? Why would I do that? I get all my left wing news from you libtards on USMB. I can’t stomach any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt, ignorance is bliss and you can't risk any idea or opinion which confronts what your handlers have told you to believe.  I get it, curiosity is too dangerous, and might cause you to think outside the box in which you've been told to reside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /—-/ So how often to you watch Fox and listen to Rush and Sean? BTW they have CNN on at the gym and I can’t help but hear their buttsore BS.
Click to expand...


When I was a deputy I transported prisoners to and from the coast to smaller counties on the East of the Sierras.  The only radio station in the caged car I could receive was Rush Limbaugh, and listening to him and his ditto heads was nothing more than hate, fear and greed.  All deadly sins broadcasts across the country.  

Hannity, like Limbaugh is a college dropout, both are demagogues and charlatans.  That seems to be the genre that  you like to listen to, read or watch, and consider real journalism as fake news.  That is what puts reality out of touch for you and others like you.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Wry Catcher said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> About the only thing you said that I would not agree with is that I do not see liberals and democrats now "demanding INCLUSION", so much as demanding EXCLUSION of everyone else. I see no real attempt at compromise anymore. About the only thing I do see (and have seen since Trump took office), is a herd of shrill sore losers determined to monkeywrench the current regime by any means necessary, use censorship to gut 'Free Speech', and embrace commie/socialist tactics to try and force a victory in 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe what you see is the result of the blinders placed on your face by watching Fox News and reading RW tabloids?  Open up you mind, unlock the box in which you've been place and think for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /—-/ Open my mind to Fake News and lopsided propaganda? Why would I do that? I get all my left wing news from you libtards on USMB. I can’t stomach any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt, ignorance is bliss and you can't risk any idea or opinion which confronts what your handlers have told you to believe.  I get it, curiosity is too dangerous, and might cause you to think outside the box in which you've been told to reside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /—-/ So how often to you watch Fox and listen to Rush and Sean? BTW they have CNN on at the gym and I can’t help but hear their buttsore BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I was a deputy I transported prisoners to and from the coast to smaller counties on the East of the Sierras.  The only radio station in the caged car I could receive was Rush Limbaugh, and listening to him and his ditto heads was nothing more than hate, fear and greed.  All deadly sins broadcasts across the country.
> 
> Hannity, like Limbaugh is a college dropout, both are demagogues and charlatans.  That seems to be the genre that  you like to listen to, read or watch, and consider real journalism as fake news.  That is what puts reality out of touch for you and others like you.
Click to expand...

/—-/ Yes, hatred for socialist and commies who want to destroy our country. Rush and Sean have more education than your typical liberal arts graduate in women’s studies.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Wry Catcher said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such a good comeback, and totally in-line with old school Commie Party propaganda tactic of accusing the opponent of what you know your side guilty of, to delay detection, and setup an easy 'out'. Republicans don't prescribe brainwashing with the verve of a hack doctor touting aspirin. Commies-socialists love your 'reeducation camps', and indoctrination of children as early as possible:
> 
> 
> Your side has turned the public school system and colleges into factories mass-producing 'ditto heads', aka SJWs, NPCs, 'radicals', and assorted brainwashed retards. Yeah, keep on accusing your opponents of the dastardly tactics you and yours employ. Even such a well known disinformation technique will fool some dullards like the fanboys of AOC, but you could fart and convince the gullible it was Chanel #5! Those with an average or above IQ can see through such leftist ploys, so you're mostly just fooling yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tinhatter Wry Catcher
> Any parties, including Libertarians Constitutionists and Green Party members,
> are going through the same politics where bigger bullies are competing to
> oppress and control for sake of agenda.
> 
> That's not enough to distinguish what is the DIFFERENCE
> between Conservative Republicans vs. Liberal Democrats.
> 
> A MAJOR reason for differences is there are more Conservatives
> Christians and Constitutionalists among the REPUBLICANS who
> believe in using either Christian scriptural laws/authority
> and/or Constitutional laws principles and authority to
> CHECK AGAINST erroneous or abusive policies.
> 
> Democrats and Liberals generally don't give the same religious credence
> to laws and authority as the rightwing believers do. The Liberals Democrats
> Greens and Progressives tend to rely on party and political power to enforce
> what they want, they don't rely on Constitutional arguments as Conservatives do.
> 
> The DIFFERENCE this makes
> 1. there is no Constitutional check on what liberals will push through govt
> because they don't believe in limits but have trouble distinguishing any difference
> between local state or federal laws govt and authority. anything goes as long as
> it gets voted in or ruled on by a judge in a court.
> 
> 2. members of liberal parties don't have the same system of checking
> each other, or govt, or their party leaders by citing the Constitution (or Christian
> scriptures in the case of rebuking a fellow Christian)
> 
> So there is also no check within the party and between members
> as you have with Conservatives Christians and Constitutionalists
> who respond to checks back and forth based on common commitment
> to these principles they hold to be a shared responsibility to enforce among
> fellow believers
> 
> 3. last, this leads to a difference in EMPOWERMENT and AUTHORITY.
> Conservatives and Christians who use their own church, nonprofit or business institutions
> to run their own programs and policies don't rely on govt for that and many are appalled threatened or violated by being forced to give up this freedom to govt to regulate by coercion.
> 
> The liberals who don't have the same organizations experience or capacity to manage their own programs directly end up not only depending and lobbying for govt to be in charge,
> but they teach others to depend on govt and party. They can't very well teach anyone else to fish or manage for themselves if they don't have that ability to do that or see this as a choice.
> 
> Unfortunately this unequal access to authority and knowledge of the law
> not only keeps economic and political disparity going, but it causes the
> current political conflicts and environment of trying to force independent
> communities and citizens "to give up their freedom" and pay taxes to GOVT
> to manage these programs since not everyone has equal ability yet.
> 
> So it becomes a vicious cycle of not only keep people oppressed and disenfranchised,
> but moving BACKWARD by forcing others to start paying and depending on govt
> (instead of moving FORWARD and empowering MORE people to govern themselves
> and their own programs directly themselves to maximize democratic ownership).
> 
> The good thing about liberals and democrats is demanding INCLUSION and not just keeping the same monopolies going; but the WRONG way to change this is to push everything through govt which isn't equipped to manage that level of diversity and
> democratic representation on a grassroots scale as needed to fully include all people.
> Instead, going through govt should be used to set up FACILITIES in every district to
> TEACH self government, ownership and management so people DO become
> INDEPENDENT not dependent on govt.  It's fine to go through govt to make sure
> there are organized systems of representing everyone, but from there, districts should be free to decide and manage their own policies and programs.
> 
> We need both inclusion of people of ALL levels of education and status,
> but also an organized system of training people in self management and govt
> so they can develop independently, not stay stuck as pawns dependent on govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About the only thing you said that I would not agree with is that I do not see liberals and democrats now "demanding INCLUSION", so much as demanding EXCLUSION of everyone else. I see no real attempt at compromise anymore. About the only thing I do see (and have seen since Trump took office), is a herd of shrill sore losers determined to monkeywrench the current regime by any means necessary, use censorship to gut 'Free Speech', and embrace commie/socialist tactics to try and force a victory in 2020.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe what you see is the result of the blinders placed on your face by watching Fox News and reading RW tabloids?  Open up you mind, unlock the box in which you've been place and think for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /—-/ Open my mind to Fake News and lopsided propaganda? Why would I do that? I get all my left wing news from you libtards on USMB. I can’t stomach any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt, ignorance is bliss and you can't risk any idea or opinion which confronts what your handlers have told you to believe.  I get it, curiosity is too dangerous, and might cause you to think outside the box in which you've been told to reside.
Click to expand...

/——-/ I found this on Fox. When is CNN running it? Man says he was beaten in NYC for wearing MAGA hat


----------



## Tinhatter

Wry Catcher said:


> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you "don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives" then you have not been trying very hard to find it, nor looking very hard to see it. As it is all over Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Raddle, etc., I must conclude those rose-coloured glasses and blinders are limiting to your eyesight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, you are one of these:
> 
> View attachment 269714
> 
> It is NOT conservatism which Democrats, liberals, progressives, independents and Republicans who have been tossed under the bus as RINO's are rejecting, per se; it is Trump and McConnell and those members of Congress in the Republican Party who refuse to compromise, and have the attitude you have expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot calling the kettle black. Libtards invented the Ostrich Clan, where hypocrisy and tunnelvision reign surpreme:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compromise with the Lefturds is much like the 'fifty-fifty relationship' touted by  feminazis....looks good til one reads the fine print...to discover it's all 95% their way! The compromise on the border wall was MIA from beginning to end. I'm not such a fan of Trump anymore, but to quote the Democrat theme song he is "the lesser of two evils". It's either Trump or the commie-socialist Libtards....an easy choice!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A ditto head ^^^^ aka a member of the Ostrich Party.
> 
> View attachment 269902
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such a good comeback, and totally in-line with old school Commie Party propaganda tactic of accusing the opponent of what you know your side guilty of, to delay detection, and setup an easy 'out'. Republicans don't prescribe brainwashing with the verve of a hack doctor touting aspirin. Commies-socialists love your 'reeducation camps', and indoctrination of children as early as possible:
> 
> 
> Your side has turned the public school system and colleges into factories mass-producing 'ditto heads', aka SJWs, NPCs, 'radicals', and assorted brainwashed retards. Yeah, keep on accusing your opponents of the dastardly tactics you and yours employ. Even such a well known disinformation technique will fool some dullards like the fanboys of AOC, but you could fart and convince the gullible it was Chanel #5! Those with an average or above IQ can see through such leftist ploys, so you're mostly just fooling yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So angry, and so ignorant - it must suck to be you.
Click to expand...



So gullible, indoctrinated, and willfully blind....it *will suck way more* to be you on your deathbed, when that brief moment of clarity dawns....best pray to Mao (or whatever god you worship) for deep senility or Alzheimer’s!


----------



## Tinhatter

Wry Catcher said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such a good comeback, and totally in-line with old school Commie Party propaganda tactic of accusing the opponent of what you know your side guilty of, to delay detection, and setup an easy 'out'. Republicans don't prescribe brainwashing with the verve of a hack doctor touting aspirin. Commies-socialists love your 'reeducation camps', and indoctrination of children as early as possible:
> 
> 
> Your side has turned the public school system and colleges into factories mass-producing 'ditto heads', aka SJWs, NPCs, 'radicals', and assorted brainwashed retards. Yeah, keep on accusing your opponents of the dastardly tactics you and yours employ. Even such a well known disinformation technique will fool some dullards like the fanboys of AOC, but you could fart and convince the gullible it was Chanel #5! Those with an average or above IQ can see through such leftist ploys, so you're mostly just fooling yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tinhatter Wry Catcher
> Any parties, including Libertarians Constitutionists and Green Party members,
> are going through the same politics where bigger bullies are competing to
> oppress and control for sake of agenda.
> 
> That's not enough to distinguish what is the DIFFERENCE
> between Conservative Republicans vs. Liberal Democrats.
> 
> A MAJOR reason for differences is there are more Conservatives
> Christians and Constitutionalists among the REPUBLICANS who
> believe in using either Christian scriptural laws/authority
> and/or Constitutional laws principles and authority to
> CHECK AGAINST erroneous or abusive policies.
> 
> Democrats and Liberals generally don't give the same religious credence
> to laws and authority as the rightwing believers do. The Liberals Democrats
> Greens and Progressives tend to rely on party and political power to enforce
> what they want, they don't rely on Constitutional arguments as Conservatives do.
> 
> The DIFFERENCE this makes
> 1. there is no Constitutional check on what liberals will push through govt
> because they don't believe in limits but have trouble distinguishing any difference
> between local state or federal laws govt and authority. anything goes as long as
> it gets voted in or ruled on by a judge in a court.
> 
> 2. members of liberal parties don't have the same system of checking
> each other, or govt, or their party leaders by citing the Constitution (or Christian
> scriptures in the case of rebuking a fellow Christian)
> 
> So there is also no check within the party and between members
> as you have with Conservatives Christians and Constitutionalists
> who respond to checks back and forth based on common commitment
> to these principles they hold to be a shared responsibility to enforce among
> fellow believers
> 
> 3. last, this leads to a difference in EMPOWERMENT and AUTHORITY.
> Conservatives and Christians who use their own church, nonprofit or business institutions
> to run their own programs and policies don't rely on govt for that and many are appalled threatened or violated by being forced to give up this freedom to govt to regulate by coercion.
> 
> The liberals who don't have the same organizations experience or capacity to manage their own programs directly end up not only depending and lobbying for govt to be in charge,
> but they teach others to depend on govt and party. They can't very well teach anyone else to fish or manage for themselves if they don't have that ability to do that or see this as a choice.
> 
> Unfortunately this unequal access to authority and knowledge of the law
> not only keeps economic and political disparity going, but it causes the
> current political conflicts and environment of trying to force independent
> communities and citizens "to give up their freedom" and pay taxes to GOVT
> to manage these programs since not everyone has equal ability yet.
> 
> So it becomes a vicious cycle of not only keep people oppressed and disenfranchised,
> but moving BACKWARD by forcing others to start paying and depending on govt
> (instead of moving FORWARD and empowering MORE people to govern themselves
> and their own programs directly themselves to maximize democratic ownership).
> 
> The good thing about liberals and democrats is demanding INCLUSION and not just keeping the same monopolies going; but the WRONG way to change this is to push everything through govt which isn't equipped to manage that level of diversity and
> democratic representation on a grassroots scale as needed to fully include all people.
> Instead, going through govt should be used to set up FACILITIES in every district to
> TEACH self government, ownership and management so people DO become
> INDEPENDENT not dependent on govt.  It's fine to go through govt to make sure
> there are organized systems of representing everyone, but from there, districts should be free to decide and manage their own policies and programs.
> 
> We need both inclusion of people of ALL levels of education and status,
> but also an organized system of training people in self management and govt
> so they can develop independently, not stay stuck as pawns dependent on govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About the only thing you said that I would not agree with is that I do not see liberals and democrats now "demanding INCLUSION", so much as demanding EXCLUSION of everyone else. I see no real attempt at compromise anymore. About the only thing I do see (and have seen since Trump took office), is a herd of shrill sore losers determined to monkeywrench the current regime by any means necessary, use censorship to gut 'Free Speech', and embrace commie/socialist tactics to try and force a victory in 2020.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe what you see is the result of the blinders placed on your face by watching Fox News and reading RW tabloids?  Open up you mind, unlock the box in which you've been place and think for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /—-/ Open my mind to Fake News and lopsided propaganda? Why would I do that? I get all my left wing news from you libtards on USMB. I can’t stomach any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt, ignorance is bliss and you can't risk any idea or opinion which confronts what your handlers have told you to believe.  I get it, curiosity is too dangerous, and might cause you to think outside the box in which you've been told to reside.
Click to expand...



More of your beloved commie propaganda tactics to popularize the 'groupthink' above....and here spelled out below:

Six Principles Of Propaganda Lenin Used To Consolidate Power | Investor's Business Daily

Brainwashing in Communist Czechoslovakia – And After | Hidden Persuaders

Nine Lessons of Russian Propaganda | Small Wars Journal

On the Role of  Agitation and Propaganda


For any curious about how commie critters think, the following should give a good outline:

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Hot Spots/Documents/Russia/Clews-Soviet.pdf

This Is How Propaganda Works: A Look Inside A Soviet Childhood


----------



## emilynghiem

Wry Catcher said:


> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pot calling the kettle black. Libtards invented the Ostrich Clan, where hypocrisy and tunnelvision reign surpreme:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compromise with the Lefturds is much like the 'fifty-fifty relationship' touted by  feminazis....looks good til one reads the fine print...to discover it's all 95% their way! The compromise on the border wall was MIA from beginning to end. I'm not such a fan of Trump anymore, but to quote the Democrat theme song he is "the lesser of two evils". It's either Trump or the commie-socialist Libtards....an easy choice!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A ditto head ^^^^ aka a member of the Ostrich Party.
> 
> View attachment 269902
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such a good comeback, and totally in-line with old school Commie Party propaganda tactic of accusing the opponent of what you know your side guilty of, to delay detection, and setup an easy 'out'. Republicans don't prescribe brainwashing with the verve of a hack doctor touting aspirin. Commies-socialists love your 'reeducation camps', and indoctrination of children as early as possible:
> 
> 
> Your side has turned the public school system and colleges into factories mass-producing 'ditto heads', aka SJWs, NPCs, 'radicals', and assorted brainwashed retards. Yeah, keep on accusing your opponents of the dastardly tactics you and yours employ. Even such a well known disinformation technique will fool some dullards like the fanboys of AOC, but you could fart and convince the gullible it was Chanel #5! Those with an average or above IQ can see through such leftist ploys, so you're mostly just fooling yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Tinhatter Wry Catcher
> Any parties, including Libertarians Constitutionists and Green Party members,
> are going through the same politics where bigger bullies are competing to
> oppress and control for sake of agenda.
> 
> That's not enough to distinguish what is the DIFFERENCE
> between Conservative Republicans vs. Liberal Democrats.
> 
> A MAJOR reason for differences is there are more Conservatives
> Christians and Constitutionalists among the REPUBLICANS who
> believe in using either Christian scriptural laws/authority
> and/or Constitutional laws principles and authority to
> CHECK AGAINST erroneous or abusive policies.
> 
> Democrats and Liberals generally don't give the same religious credence
> to laws and authority as the rightwing believers do. The Liberals Democrats
> Greens and Progressives tend to rely on party and political power to enforce
> what they want, they don't rely on Constitutional arguments as Conservatives do.
> 
> The DIFFERENCE this makes
> 1. there is no Constitutional check on what liberals will push through govt
> because they don't believe in limits but have trouble distinguishing any difference
> between local state or federal laws govt and authority. anything goes as long as
> it gets voted in or ruled on by a judge in a court.
> 
> 2. members of liberal parties don't have the same system of checking
> each other, or govt, or their party leaders by citing the Constitution (or Christian
> scriptures in the case of rebuking a fellow Christian)
> 
> So there is also no check within the party and between members
> as you have with Conservatives Christians and Constitutionalists
> who respond to checks back and forth based on common commitment
> to these principles they hold to be a shared responsibility to enforce among
> fellow believers
> 
> 3. last, this leads to a difference in EMPOWERMENT and AUTHORITY.
> Conservatives and Christians who use their own church, nonprofit or business institutions
> to run their own programs and policies don't rely on govt for that and many are appalled threatened or violated by being forced to give up this freedom to govt to regulate by coercion.
> 
> The liberals who don't have the same organizations experience or capacity to manage their own programs directly end up not only depending and lobbying for govt to be in charge,
> but they teach others to depend on govt and party. They can't very well teach anyone else to fish or manage for themselves if they don't have that ability to do that or see this as a choice.
> 
> Unfortunately this unequal access to authority and knowledge of the law
> not only keeps economic and political disparity going, but it causes the
> current political conflicts and environment of trying to force independent
> communities and citizens "to give up their freedom" and pay taxes to GOVT
> to manage these programs since not everyone has equal ability yet.
> 
> So it becomes a vicious cycle of not only keep people oppressed and disenfranchised,
> but moving BACKWARD by forcing others to start paying and depending on govt
> (instead of moving FORWARD and empowering MORE people to govern themselves
> and their own programs directly themselves to maximize democratic ownership).
> 
> The good thing about liberals and democrats is demanding INCLUSION and not just keeping the same monopolies going; but the WRONG way to change this is to push everything through govt which isn't equipped to manage that level of diversity and
> democratic representation on a grassroots scale as needed to fully include all people.
> Instead, going through govt should be used to set up FACILITIES in every district to
> TEACH self government, ownership and management so people DO become
> INDEPENDENT not dependent on govt.  It's fine to go through govt to make sure
> there are organized systems of representing everyone, but from there, districts should be free to decide and manage their own policies and programs.
> 
> We need both inclusion of people of ALL levels of education and status,
> but also an organized system of training people in self management and govt
> so they can develop independently, not stay stuck as pawns dependent on govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About the only thing you said that I would not agree with is that I do not see liberals and democrats now "demanding INCLUSION", so much as demanding EXCLUSION of everyone else. I see no real attempt at compromise anymore. About the only thing I do see (and have seen since Trump took office), is a herd of shrill sore losers determined to monkeywrench the current regime by any means necessary, use censorship to gut 'Free Speech', and embrace commie/socialist tactics to try and force a victory in 2020.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe what you see is the result of the blinders placed on your face by watching Fox News and reading RW tabloids?  Open up you mind, unlock the box in which you've been place and think for yourself.
Click to expand...


Dear Wry Catcher
I've been working directly with both "official elected Democratic Party leaders" AND the grassroots progressive activists with both Dems and Greens, including Green Party/Harris County members and leaders, Democratic leaders active in the community, and both Democrats Greens Liberals Progressives (all labels and variations) in the Public Radio/KPFT community, the Peace and Justice community in Houston including the factions that divided and broke off from each other in all these groups, the people in all these groups organizing protests and events around media issues, political issues, criminal justice/prison/police issues, environmental issues, anti-war, and immigration/worker/health care reforms.

So I understand there are FACTIONS within these communities and including within the factions as well. 

In all these groups, the activists and leaders STILL teach dependence on party and govt.

the most INDEPENDENT activists and leaders who teach to DIY are so rare, that the few I know have either died off and nobody could replace them, or they are retiring from fighting battles on their own.

The majority of these groups preach to depend on party leaders, electing their candidates, and depending on govt where they focus on OPPOSING, eliminating, overruling and generally NOT WORKING WITH conservatives, Republicans or Trump/Bush supporters they see as the problem.

I have generally NOT FOUND the kind of political inclusion and cooperation that I believe in developing for sustainable solutions, and end up being the lone voice and advocate "going against the grain."

Wry Catcher I can name on one hand the fellow liberal/progressives willing to work with people from other parties and think in other terms besides pushing their party before any others (whether Dem or Green).

There is NO organized group of these.

A lot of the Greens and independent progressives I have met can't work with Democrats because they'll just push their own party agenda and that's it. 

Many got fed up after getting kicked out and overruled over the Clinton/Sanders fallout.

Again, regardless WHICH faction these people have broken off and branched off into,
by nature of the collective organization dynamic
(A) the people IN big enough groups to get something done as a group
all go with the EXCLUSIONARY tactics of putting their party agenda FIRST
above all else and not addressing anything else
(B) the people WILLING to work inclusively and not just push party agenda
don't have the numbers to get anything done.  I can work with people one on one
on this individual level, but generally can't get them to work in any larger numbers.
The minute you have to compete with any larger groups, the group politics kicks
in and it's back to just playing the same political games of majority rule and winner takes all.

So because of that, even if I can get INDIVIDUALS to think and work on an inclusive level
working with others from other parties, they mostly "give up" and default back to the same system of just relying on the major parties to push for their agenda and cut out the individuals and any solutions that work on that level; they end up just pushing for over-generalized policies that can be lobbied for collectively in large groups and lose the ability to represent true individual choice, participation and diversity. All that gets lost when you try to use group politics.


----------



## Tinhatter

Wry Catcher said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinhatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> About the only thing you said that I would not agree with is that I do not see liberals and democrats now "demanding INCLUSION", so much as demanding EXCLUSION of everyone else. I see no real attempt at compromise anymore. About the only thing I do see (and have seen since Trump took office), is a herd of shrill sore losers determined to monkeywrench the current regime by any means necessary, use censorship to gut 'Free Speech', and embrace commie/socialist tactics to try and force a victory in 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe what you see is the result of the blinders placed on your face by watching Fox News and reading RW tabloids?  Open up you mind, unlock the box in which you've been place and think for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /—-/ Open my mind to Fake News and lopsided propaganda? Why would I do that? I get all my left wing news from you libtards on USMB. I can’t stomach any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt, ignorance is bliss and you can't risk any idea or opinion which confronts what your handlers have told you to believe.  I get it, curiosity is too dangerous, and might cause you to think outside the box in which you've been told to reside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /—-/ So how often to you watch Fox and listen to Rush and Sean? BTW they have CNN on at the gym and I can’t help but hear their buttsore BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I was a deputy I transported prisoners to and from the coast to smaller counties on the East of the Sierras.  The only radio station in the caged car I could receive was Rush Limbaugh, and listening to him and his ditto heads was nothing more than hate, fear and greed.  All deadly sins broadcasts across the country.
> 
> Hannity, like Limbaugh is a college dropout, both are demagogues and charlatans.  That seems to be the genre that  you like to listen to, read or watch, and consider real journalism as fake news.  That is what puts reality out of touch for you and others like you.
Click to expand...


Awww, does it give your undies a wedgie to realize that for every Leftard mouthpiece like Don Lemon or Rachel Maddow, there is a Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter to challenge their BS? Poor baby! But hey, it must be oh-so convenient to have mastered selective hearing in order to filter out all the "hate, fear and greed" spewing forth from CNN, MSM, Vox, and similar TASS wannabes. Yep, mighty handy! Sorta like having your very own 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' device ever-ready to deploy? Ain't you the lucky one?

Considering colleges have long since been taken over by your commie/socialist heroes, I'd say old Hannity and Limbaugh just managed to dodge the leftist bullet, and escape being brainwashed. Kinda like two gullible kids escaping the Moonie Cult compound! Real journalism? I got your "real journalism" right here:

Lara Logan Slams Media For Becoming Left-Wing "Propagandists" With "Horseshit" Low Standards

MIND CONTROL: Watch As News Anchors All Across The Country Say The Same Thing And Repeat The Same Taglines Over And Over Again • Now The End Begins

All These Local News Anchors Repeat The Exact Same Phrase | HuffPost



VIDEO: 25 Anchors Read the Exact Same Script


----------



## midcan5

The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask? 

*Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?

*Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.

*Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.  

Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.


*'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*









						100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
					

Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.




					www.americanprogress.org
				




*What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *





__





						What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
					





					polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
				












						I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
					

From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.



					www.stirjournal.com
				




"Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace


"Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil


----------



## Votto

midcan5 said:


> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil


Conservatives hate women?

Tell you wut, after the looney, hate filled, hypocritical left gets done raping Trump's female pick for SCOTUS we can return to this conversation.

Sound good?


----------



## Death Angel

midcan5 said:


> And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value


I'm feeling your love


----------



## kaz

midcan5 said:


> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil



Democrats call anyone they disagree with Nazis, racists, xenophobes, misogynists, homophobes, lovers of the rich and corporations and haters of the poor.

And you say hate is a CONSERVATIVE trait?  You're the class clown


----------



## jbrownson0831

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


You are all lawless America haters


----------



## Dick Foster

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


Maybe because they're actually as far from libreal as one can get. There's also nothing progressive about the assholes either. Even the term democrat when applied to them is a big damned lie.
A more accurate description would be repressive socalist asshole.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

midcan5 said:


> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil



I read your post.
after doing so it is clear to me that you are mentally ill.
Much of what you said is ultra biased and based on nothing but your emotions.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Dick Foster said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because they're actually as far from libreal as one can get. There's also nothing progressive about the assholes either. Even the term democrat when applied to them is a big damned lie.
> A more accurate description would be repressive socalist asshole.
Click to expand...

Yep.

When the left embraced the tribalism of identity politics and started enforcing it in authoritarian ways, they abandoned any sense of liberalism.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

midcan5 said:


> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil


You would not recognise a liberal value if it smacked you along side your ignorant little face.


----------



## elektra

*Aint it funny, the bigotry, the stereotyping, and the hate that is what the democrats practice, what they feel in thier hearts, yet project on to us who try to mind our own business.

Democrats, they are sick in the head*


----------



## task0778

Votto said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate women?
> 
> Tell you wut, after the looney, hate filled, hypocritical left gets done raping Trump's female pick for SCOTUS we can return to this conversation.
> 
> Sound good?
Click to expand...


I remember the way the Left treated Sarah Palin, and how open-minded and tolerant they were then.  Or Susan Collins when she wouldn't vote against Kavanaugh.  If I'm not mistaken, women have done very well in Trump's economy compared to Obama's.  So have minorities.


----------



## Cellblock2429

midcan5 said:


> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil


/—-/ A fresh truckload of tripe direct from LiberalPropagandaville. Bwhahahaha


----------



## Jackson

midcan5 said:


> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil


Where are the example of "hate" in our society today?  Well, let's see...

*Hate* is assaulting someone who is unarmed or not engaged in a dispute with the assaulter.   

*Hate* is burning a building without thinking of the welfare of others around, firefighters, the owner of that building, or the people who work in that shop that just lost their job.  

*Hate *is crashing into a shop and allowing other hate filled people to loot the shop not thinking of people who owned and worked in that shop.

*Hate* is throwing projectiles such as bricks, fireworks, molotov cocktails,

*Hate* is aiming lasers into the eyes of police officers, blinding them for going to work to help others.

President Trump has accomplished more than any other president.   

It appears the Hate is on the hands of those who are unhealthy liberals.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Jackson said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the example of "hate" in our society today?  Well, let's see...
> 
> *Hate* is assaulting someone who is unarmed or not engaged in a dispute with the assaulter.
> 
> *Hate* is burning a building without thinking of the welfare of others around, firefighters, the owner of that building, or the people who work in that shop that just lost their job.
> 
> *Hate *is crashing into a shop and allowing other hate filled people to loot the shop not thinking of people who owned and worked in that shop.
> 
> *Hate* is throwing projectiles such as bricks, fireworks, molotov cocktails,
> 
> *Hate* is aiming lasers into the eyes of police officers, blinding them for going to work to help others.
> 
> President Trump has accomplished more than any other president.
> 
> It appears the Hate is on the hands of those who are unhealthy liberals.
Click to expand...

/——/ Bravo.


----------



## Votto

task0778 said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate women?
> 
> Tell you wut, after the looney, hate filled, hypocritical left gets done raping Trump's female pick for SCOTUS we can return to this conversation.
> 
> Sound good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember the way the Left treated Sarah Palin, and how open-minded and tolerant they were then.  Or Susan Collins when she wouldn't vote against Kavanaugh.  If I'm not mistaken, women have done very well in Trump's economy compared to Obama's.  So have minorities.
Click to expand...

I loved it when they tagged John McCain as a racist when he ran against Obama but when he came out against Trump the media made him a statesman over night, someone to be respected and revered.

Idiots.


----------



## westwall

midcan5 said:


> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil









I see you paint with a very wide brush.  Kind of like your hero there, Aldous.  He was a "big thinker" too.  But ultimately his thoughts were juvenile in nature.


----------



## buckeye45_73

midcan5 said:


> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil


This post is nonsense
You can tell by the Mexican rapists....he's just regurgitating the media talking points


----------



## Unkotare

midcan5 said:


> *.... hate today is a conservative value.* ....




This is the Philosophy Forum. Take your mindlessly partisan, biased nonsense to the Political Forum where it belongs. Better yet, take this bullshit to the Badlands where the troll thread you are so eager for will be a better fit.


----------



## buckeye45_73

midcan5 said:


> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil


HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them. 
Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
then nuclear...too dangerous
then solar....oops it's not efficient enough

The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....

This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.


Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...

You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....


----------



## francoHFW

Votto said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate women?
> 
> Tell you wut, after the looney, hate filled, hypocritical left gets done raping Trump's female pick for SCOTUS we can return to this conversation.
> 
> Sound good?
Click to expand...

Just because they have fought women's rights all the way including the era..... Since Reagan especially. That's the problem with the GOP-since Reagan and the propaganda machine- the giveaway to the rich and the stupid wars and corrupt bubbles and busts.….


----------



## francoHFW

buckeye45_73 said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
Click to expand...

Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything


----------



## buckeye45_73

francoHFW said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives hate women?
> 
> Tell you wut, after the looney, hate filled, hypocritical left gets done raping Trump's female pick for SCOTUS we can return to this conversation.
> 
> Sound good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because they have fought women's rights all the way including the era..... Since Reagan especially. That's the problem with the GOP-since Reagan and the propaganda machine- the giveaway to the rich and the stupid wars and corrupt bubbles and busts.….
Click to expand...

More nonsense from Franco........what rights do women not have?


----------



## buckeye45_73

francoHFW said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
Click to expand...

LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?


----------



## Unkotare

buckeye45_73 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
Click to expand...


If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....


----------



## buckeye45_73

Unkotare said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
Click to expand...

No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......


----------



## Indeependent

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


If you haven’t noticed how Liberals insult non-Liberals you’re either lying or illiterate.


----------



## justinacolmena

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.


Liberals bring it on themselves by refusing to mind their own business and dictating and regulating other people's lives in excruciating intimate detail.


----------



## buckeye45_73

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


I no longer use the term liberal....because the left is not liberal...in fact liberal democracy is something they despise.....I use leftist
What is a leftist?
Someone who believes in govt control.....socialism/communism/fascism/marxism to me are leftwing, both politically and economically...the opposite of those is Liberal democratic/republican capitalism

So I would consider a liberal more like a classical liberal...which would be a libertarian.......which typically lean right

Progressives were so disgusting that after the fascists were exposed, the progressives dropped that name and called themselves liberals.....which is incorrect, but it was just a label....now with people forgetting about progressives back then and now calling fascism right wing.....they then tainted the label liberal (you can change your name, but it doesnt change who you are)they are now back to calling themselves progressive.


----------



## LuckyDuck

The original interpretation of someone who was described as a liberal, meant that the individual was one who sought "liberty and freedom."
The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who scream that speech that is different from theirs, is hate speech.
The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who openly seek to tear down our Bill of Rights via the Constitution. 
The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who refuse to accept election results that differ from their desired outcome.
The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who seek to do away with the Constitution and Electoral College because it doesn't always go their way.
The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who try to unseat a lawfully elected president, through lies and innuendo. 
The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who have been loudly and actively defending criminals over law enforcement doing their tough job.
The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who are no longer what the original term meant, but rather, Marxists.


----------



## buckeye45_73

LuckyDuck said:


> The original interpretation of someone who was described as a liberal, meant that the individual was one who sought "liberty and freedom."
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who scream that speech that is different from theirs, is hate speech.
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who openly seek to tear down our Bill of Rights via the Constitution.
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who refuse to accept election results that differ from their desired outcome.
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who seek to do away with the Constitution and Electoral College because it doesn't always go their way.
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who try to unseat a lawfully elected president, through lies and innuendo.
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who have been loudly and actively defending criminals over law enforcement doing their tough job.
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who are no longer what the original term meant, but rather, Marxists.


Liberals are shedding this label back to their historic Progressive label, which is ironic, but in the 1920s, communism was seen as progressive, fascism was progressive....now we know both suck hard....


----------



## LuckyDuck

buckeye45_73 said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The original interpretation of someone who was described as a liberal, meant that the individual was one who sought "liberty and freedom."
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who scream that speech that is different from theirs, is hate speech.
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who openly seek to tear down our Bill of Rights via the Constitution.
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who refuse to accept election results that differ from their desired outcome.
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who seek to do away with the Constitution and Electoral College because it doesn't always go their way.
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who try to unseat a lawfully elected president, through lies and innuendo.
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who have been loudly and actively defending criminals over law enforcement doing their tough job.
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who are no longer what the original term meant, but rather, Marxists.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals are shedding this label back to their historic Progressive label, which is ironic, but in the 1920s, communism was seen as progressive, fascism was progressive....now we know both suck hard....
Click to expand...

The Marxist left isn't progressive, it's regressive.


----------



## buckeye45_73

LuckyDuck said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The original interpretation of someone who was described as a liberal, meant that the individual was one who sought "liberty and freedom."
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who scream that speech that is different from theirs, is hate speech.
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who openly seek to tear down our Bill of Rights via the Constitution.
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who refuse to accept election results that differ from their desired outcome.
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who seek to do away with the Constitution and Electoral College because it doesn't always go their way.
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who try to unseat a lawfully elected president, through lies and innuendo.
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who have been loudly and actively defending criminals over law enforcement doing their tough job.
> The so-called liberals of this era, are individuals who are no longer what the original term meant, but rather, Marxists.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals are shedding this label back to their historic Progressive label, which is ironic, but in the 1920s, communism was seen as progressive, fascism was progressive....now we know both suck hard....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Marxist left isn't progressive, it's regressive.
Click to expand...

I would agree.....they label themselves as progressive......but they are stuck in 1920 and want to go backwards further......they don't even like electricity.....or the ways you obtain it.


----------



## asaratis

midcan5 said:


> conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness.


Lies, all three.

Conservatives don't hate change.  We want to change the swamp...by draining it of corrupt, disingenuous politicians (most of which are liberals)...and that would be PROGRESS in the right direction.

Conservatives don't hate openness.  Hating openness is what liberals do...like when Pelosi didn't allow conservatives to help with the disastrous ObubbaCare law that we "had to pass to see what's in it." 

Also like when Adam Schitt conducted his impeachment hearings in the closed-door basement and wouldn't allow Republicans in the room.

Liberal liars take the cake in projecting their flaws onto others.  That's part of the liberal mantra..._accuse others of what you are doing._

Nice job!




midcan5 said:


> OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are.


Liberals are tolerant?  Like when liberal college campuses won't allow conservatives to speak?  Like when they refuse to invite them to speak?  Like when they shout them down when they do try to speak?

How tolerant of you! 

Liberals are open minded?  That's laughable!  Liberals don't want conservatives speaking to their sheeple because they're deathly afraid that some of the sheep might change their minds.

Liberals have 2 hard rules concerning political ideology.

Others are entitled to their opinions.
Only opinions that match ours can be openly expressed.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.  You are severely afflicted with it.  Get some professional help.

Your post is choke full of lies.  I suggest you steal a copy of this book, or pick one up during your next opportunity to loot a bookstore.


----------



## francoHFW

buckeye45_73 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......
Click to expand...

several Democratic Mayors have said the police have sometimes been uncooperative. it's like that precinct in Seattle that was burned. What a mess they could end immediately if Trump would just order body cameras everywhere. For example. He is such a disaster


Why do trumpers hate liberals? Because they believe hundreds of scandals and conspiracies about Democrats for 25-30 years thanks GOP propaganda machine. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or even indicted or even suspected by law enforcement? You are a disgrace too


----------



## buckeye45_73

francoHFW said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> several Democratic Mayors have said the police have sometimes been uncooperative. it's like that precinct in Seattle that was burned. What a mess they could end immediately if Trump would just order body cameras everywhere. For example. He is such a disaster
> 
> 
> Why do trumpers hate liberals? Because they believe hundreds of scandals and conspiracies about Democrats for 25-30 years thanks GOP propaganda machine. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or even indicted or even suspected by law enforcement? You are a disgrace too
Click to expand...

What does Trump have to do with local police getting cameras? Do you know how this country works? Oh wait you're a lefty so no......in the USSR they would just handle it...right?


----------



## francoHFW

asaratis said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness.
> 
> 
> 
> Lies, all three.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate change.  We want to change the swamp...by draining it of corrupt, disingenuous politicians (most of which are liberals)...and that would be PROGRESS in the right direction.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate openness.  Hating openness is what liberals do...like when Pelosi didn't allow conservatives to help with the disastrous ObubbaCare law that we "had to pass to see what's in it."
> 
> Also like when Adam Schitt conducted his impeachment hearings in the closed-door basement and wouldn't allow Republicans in the room.
> 
> Liberal liars take the cake in projecting their flaws onto others.  That's part of the liberal mantra..._accuse others of what you are doing._
> 
> Nice job!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals are tolerant?  Like when liberal college campuses won't allow conservatives to speak?  Like when they refuse to invite them to speak?  Like when they shout them down when they do try to speak?
> 
> How tolerant of you!
> 
> Liberals are open minded?  That's laughable!  Liberals don't want conservatives speaking to their sheeple because they're deathly afraid that some of the sheep might change their minds.
> 
> Liberals have 2 hard rules concerning political ideology.
> 
> Others are entitled to their opinions.
> Only opinions that match ours can be openly expressed.
> 
> Liberalism is a mental disorder.  You are severely afflicted with it.  Get some professional help.
> 
> Your post is choke full of lies.  I suggest you steal a copy of this book, or pick one up during your next opportunity to loot a bookstore.
> 
> 
> View attachment 392238
Click to expand...

Of course everything you know is wrong. Democrats negotiated with the gang of six or whatever for months over Obamacare. Plus Obamacare is the GOP plan for crying out loud. They wouldn't vote for any health care anyway. You vote against yourself, brainwashed functional moron and Adam shift that was open to any Republican total load of crap propaganda like everything you know.


----------



## buckeye45_73

francoHFW said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness.
> 
> 
> 
> Lies, all three.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate change.  We want to change the swamp...by draining it of corrupt, disingenuous politicians (most of which are liberals)...and that would be PROGRESS in the right direction.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate openness.  Hating openness is what liberals do...like when Pelosi didn't allow conservatives to help with the disastrous ObubbaCare law that we "had to pass to see what's in it."
> 
> Also like when Adam Schitt conducted his impeachment hearings in the closed-door basement and wouldn't allow Republicans in the room.
> 
> Liberal liars take the cake in projecting their flaws onto others.  That's part of the liberal mantra..._accuse others of what you are doing._
> 
> Nice job!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals are tolerant?  Like when liberal college campuses won't allow conservatives to speak?  Like when they refuse to invite them to speak?  Like when they shout them down when they do try to speak?
> 
> How tolerant of you!
> 
> Liberals are open minded?  That's laughable!  Liberals don't want conservatives speaking to their sheeple because they're deathly afraid that some of the sheep might change their minds.
> 
> Liberals have 2 hard rules concerning political ideology.
> 
> Others are entitled to their opinions.
> Only opinions that match ours can be openly expressed.
> 
> Liberalism is a mental disorder.  You are severely afflicted with it.  Get some professional help.
> 
> Your post is choke full of lies.  I suggest you steal a copy of this book, or pick one up during your next opportunity to loot a bookstore.
> 
> 
> View attachment 392238
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course everything you know is wrong. Democrats negotiated with the gang of six or whatever for months over Obamacare. Plus Obamacare is the GOP plan for crying out loud. They wouldn't vote for any health care anyway. You vote against yourself, brainwashed functional moron and Adam shift that was open to any Republican total load of crap propaganda like everything you know.
Click to expand...

you are a moron.....pub crap


----------



## RetiredGySgt

francoHFW said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> several Democratic Mayors have said the police have sometimes been uncooperative. it's like that precinct in Seattle that was burned. What a mess they could end immediately if Trump would just order body cameras everywhere. For example. He is such a disaster
> 
> 
> Why do trumpers hate liberals? Because they believe hundreds of scandals and conspiracies about Democrats for 25-30 years thanks GOP propaganda machine. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or even indicted or even suspected by law enforcement? You are a disgrace too
Click to expand...

The President has ZERO authority to order State and local cops to do anything. He has NO police authority at all. Neither does Congress. Or perhaps you can link to the passage in the Constitution that grants police power over States and Local Communities? The ONLY police authority Congress has is over federal police and that is NOT spelled out in the specific powers of Congress but rather derived from the catch all that they have power to enforce their other powers.


----------



## buckeye45_73

RetiredGySgt said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> several Democratic Mayors have said the police have sometimes been uncooperative. it's like that precinct in Seattle that was burned. What a mess they could end immediately if Trump would just order body cameras everywhere. For example. He is such a disaster
> 
> 
> Why do trumpers hate liberals? Because they believe hundreds of scandals and conspiracies about Democrats for 25-30 years thanks GOP propaganda machine. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or even indicted or even suspected by law enforcement? You are a disgrace too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The President has ZERO authority to order State and local cops to do anything. He has NO police authority at all. Neither does Congress. Or perhaps you can link to the passage in the Constitution that grants police power over States and Local Communities? The ONLY police authority Congress has is over federal police and that is NOT spelled out in the specific powers of Congress but rather derived from the catch all that they have power to enforce their other powers.
Click to expand...

These lefties have no clue how this country works, no wonder they are stupid and bitch about everything.....Learn how it works, then maybe you can find happiness


----------



## francoHFW

buckeye45_73 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> several Democratic Mayors have said the police have sometimes been uncooperative. it's like that precinct in Seattle that was burned. What a mess they could end immediately if Trump would just order body cameras everywhere. For example. He is such a disaster
> 
> 
> Why do trumpers hate liberals? Because they believe hundreds of scandals and conspiracies about Democrats for 25-30 years thanks GOP propaganda machine. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or even indicted or even suspected by law enforcement? You are a disgrace too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does Trump have to do with local police getting cameras? Do you know how this country works? Oh wait you're a lefty so no......in the USSR they would just handle it...right?
Click to expand...

So you are a constitutional scholar now? Executive order? Doesn't sound that hard to me period or he could just give them money and make them with highway funds like they usually do.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

francoHFW said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> several Democratic Mayors have said the police have sometimes been uncooperative. it's like that precinct in Seattle that was burned. What a mess they could end immediately if Trump would just order body cameras everywhere. For example. He is such a disaster
> 
> 
> Why do trumpers hate liberals? Because they believe hundreds of scandals and conspiracies about Democrats for 25-30 years thanks GOP propaganda machine. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or even indicted or even suspected by law enforcement? You are a disgrace too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does Trump have to do with local police getting cameras? Do you know how this country works? Oh wait you're a lefty so no......in the USSR they would just handle it...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a constitutional scholar now? Executive order? Doesn't sound that hard to me period or he could just give them money and make them with highway funds like they usually do.
Click to expand...

Look dumb ass, Neither the President or the Congress have AUTHORITY to do anything in State and local law enforcement. They can give grants but they can not dictate policy or how the police power works. Learn the damn Government and its responsibilities.


----------



## francoHFW

RetiredGySgt said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> several Democratic Mayors have said the police have sometimes been uncooperative. it's like that precinct in Seattle that was burned. What a mess they could end immediately if Trump would just order body cameras everywhere. For example. He is such a disaster
> 
> 
> Why do trumpers hate liberals? Because they believe hundreds of scandals and conspiracies about Democrats for 25-30 years thanks GOP propaganda machine. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or even indicted or even suspected by law enforcement? You are a disgrace too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The President has ZERO authority to order State and local cops to do anything. He has NO police authority at all. Neither does Congress. Or perhaps you can link to the passage in the Constitution that grants police power over States and Local Communities? The ONLY police authority Congress has is over federal police and that is NOT spelled out in the specific powers of Congress but rather derived from the catch all that they have power to enforce their other powers.
Click to expand...

Well he has a lot of power over whoever does have power over the police for crying out loud. LOL.we can make it you people believe just about anything and make GOP politicians say whatever he wants, so don't be ridiculous.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> several Democratic Mayors have said the police have sometimes been uncooperative. it's like that precinct in Seattle that was burned. What a mess they could end immediately if Trump would just order body cameras everywhere. For example. He is such a disaster
> 
> 
> Why do trumpers hate liberals? Because they believe hundreds of scandals and conspiracies about Democrats for 25-30 years thanks GOP propaganda machine. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or even indicted or even suspected by law enforcement? You are a disgrace too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The President has ZERO authority to order State and local cops to do anything. He has NO police authority at all. Neither does Congress. Or perhaps you can link to the passage in the Constitution that grants police power over States and Local Communities? The ONLY police authority Congress has is over federal police and that is NOT spelled out in the specific powers of Congress but rather derived from the catch all that they have power to enforce their other powers.
Click to expand...

You can funny it all you want RETARD. The Constitution does NOT give Congress or the President ANY POWER or AUTHORITY over State and Local law enforcement. Like I said if you disagree LINK to the passage that grants the power and authority.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

francoHFW said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> several Democratic Mayors have said the police have sometimes been uncooperative. it's like that precinct in Seattle that was burned. What a mess they could end immediately if Trump would just order body cameras everywhere. For example. He is such a disaster
> 
> 
> Why do trumpers hate liberals? Because they believe hundreds of scandals and conspiracies about Democrats for 25-30 years thanks GOP propaganda machine. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or even indicted or even suspected by law enforcement? You are a disgrace too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The President has ZERO authority to order State and local cops to do anything. He has NO police authority at all. Neither does Congress. Or perhaps you can link to the passage in the Constitution that grants police power over States and Local Communities? The ONLY police authority Congress has is over federal police and that is NOT spelled out in the specific powers of Congress but rather derived from the catch all that they have power to enforce their other powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well he has a lot of power over whoever does have power over the police for crying out loud. LOL.we can make it you people believe just about anything and make GOP politicians say whatever he wants, so don't be ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Be SPECIFIC now and link to any part of the Constitution that gives a President Authority over a State Governor or County Sheriff, or city Police department.


----------



## francoHFW

RetiredGySgt said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> several Democratic Mayors have said the police have sometimes been uncooperative. it's like that precinct in Seattle that was burned. What a mess they could end immediately if Trump would just order body cameras everywhere. For example. He is such a disaster
> 
> 
> Why do trumpers hate liberals? Because they believe hundreds of scandals and conspiracies about Democrats for 25-30 years thanks GOP propaganda machine. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or even indicted or even suspected by law enforcement? You are a disgrace too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does Trump have to do with local police getting cameras? Do you know how this country works? Oh wait you're a lefty so no......in the USSR they would just handle it...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a constitutional scholar now? Executive order? Doesn't sound that hard to me period or he could just give them money and make them with highway funds like they usually do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look dumb ass, Neither the President or the Congress have AUTHORITY to do anything in State and local law enforcement. They can give grants but they can not dictate policy or how the police power works. Learn the damn Government and its responsibilities.
Click to expand...

Karamba, you are totally full of crap LOL Democrats would do it and Republicans would be made to do it by Trump otherwise he'd cut them off if that's what he wanted which he doesn't . He wants divisiveness.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

francoHFW said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> several Democratic Mayors have said the police have sometimes been uncooperative. it's like that precinct in Seattle that was burned. What a mess they could end immediately if Trump would just order body cameras everywhere. For example. He is such a disaster
> 
> 
> Why do trumpers hate liberals? Because they believe hundreds of scandals and conspiracies about Democrats for 25-30 years thanks GOP propaganda machine. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or even indicted or even suspected by law enforcement? You are a disgrace too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does Trump have to do with local police getting cameras? Do you know how this country works? Oh wait you're a lefty so no......in the USSR they would just handle it...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a constitutional scholar now? Executive order? Doesn't sound that hard to me period or he could just give them money and make them with highway funds like they usually do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look dumb ass, Neither the President or the Congress have AUTHORITY to do anything in State and local law enforcement. They can give grants but they can not dictate policy or how the police power works. Learn the damn Government and its responsibilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Karamba, you are totally full of crap LOL Democrats would do it and Republicans would be made to do it by Trump otherwise he'd cut them off if that's what he wanted which he doesn't . He wants divisiveness.
Click to expand...

The Federal Government does NOT fund State or local law enforcement, there are some grants to allow the cops to buy gear but it is not needed or required. it is just a freebie to militarize the police.


----------



## francoHFW

RetiredGySgt said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> several Democratic Mayors have said the police have sometimes been uncooperative. it's like that precinct in Seattle that was burned. What a mess they could end immediately if Trump would just order body cameras everywhere. For example. He is such a disaster
> 
> 
> Why do trumpers hate liberals? Because they believe hundreds of scandals and conspiracies about Democrats for 25-30 years thanks GOP propaganda machine. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or even indicted or even suspected by law enforcement? You are a disgrace too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The President has ZERO authority to order State and local cops to do anything. He has NO police authority at all. Neither does Congress. Or perhaps you can link to the passage in the Constitution that grants police power over States and Local Communities? The ONLY police authority Congress has is over federal police and that is NOT spelled out in the specific powers of Congress but rather derived from the catch all that they have power to enforce their other powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can funny it all you want RETARD. The Constitution does NOT give Congress or the President ANY POWER or AUTHORITY over State and Local law enforcement. Like I said if you disagree LINK to the passage that grants the power and authority.
Click to expand...

It is in a gray area which you appear not to be able to see. I have a masters in history you have a masters in GOP garbage. Of course Trump has the bully pulpit and minions everywhere are you kidding me?


----------



## buckeye45_73

francoHFW said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> several Democratic Mayors have said the police have sometimes been uncooperative. it's like that precinct in Seattle that was burned. What a mess they could end immediately if Trump would just order body cameras everywhere. For example. He is such a disaster
> 
> 
> Why do trumpers hate liberals? Because they believe hundreds of scandals and conspiracies about Democrats for 25-30 years thanks GOP propaganda machine. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or even indicted or even suspected by law enforcement? You are a disgrace too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does Trump have to do with local police getting cameras? Do you know how this country works? Oh wait you're a lefty so no......in the USSR they would just handle it...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a constitutional scholar now? Executive order? Doesn't sound that hard to me period or he could just give them money and make them with highway funds like they usually do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look dumb ass, Neither the President or the Congress have AUTHORITY to do anything in State and local law enforcement. They can give grants but they can not dictate policy or how the police power works. Learn the damn Government and its responsibilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Karamba, you are totally full of crap LOL Democrats would do it and Republicans would be made to do it by Trump otherwise he'd cut them off if that's what he wanted which he doesn't . He wants divisiveness.
Click to expand...

Cut what off, funding to the city? He is doing that....and you guys bitch about it.....talk about full of shit...you guys have silos full of it.


----------



## francoHFW

RetiredGySgt said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> several Democratic Mayors have said the police have sometimes been uncooperative. it's like that precinct in Seattle that was burned. What a mess they could end immediately if Trump would just order body cameras everywhere. For example. He is such a disaster
> 
> 
> Why do trumpers hate liberals? Because they believe hundreds of scandals and conspiracies about Democrats for 25-30 years thanks GOP propaganda machine. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or even indicted or even suspected by law enforcement? You are a disgrace too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does Trump have to do with local police getting cameras? Do you know how this country works? Oh wait you're a lefty so no......in the USSR they would just handle it...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a constitutional scholar now? Executive order? Doesn't sound that hard to me period or he could just give them money and make them with highway funds like they usually do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look dumb ass, Neither the President or the Congress have AUTHORITY to do anything in State and local law enforcement. They can give grants but they can not dictate policy or how the police power works. Learn the damn Government and its responsibilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Karamba, you are totally full of crap LOL Democrats would do it and Republicans would be made to do it by Trump otherwise he'd cut them off if that's what he wanted which he doesn't . He wants divisiveness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Federal Government does NOT fund State or local law enforcement, there are some grants to allow the cops to buy gear but it is not needed or required. it is just a freebie to militarize the police.
Click to expand...




buckeye45_73 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> several Democratic Mayors have said the police have sometimes been uncooperative. it's like that precinct in Seattle that was burned. What a mess they could end immediately if Trump would just order body cameras everywhere. For example. He is such a disaster
> 
> 
> Why do trumpers hate liberals? Because they believe hundreds of scandals and conspiracies about Democrats for 25-30 years thanks GOP propaganda machine. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or even indicted or even suspected by law enforcement? You are a disgrace too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does Trump have to do with local police getting cameras? Do you know how this country works? Oh wait you're a lefty so no......in the USSR they would just handle it...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a constitutional scholar now? Executive order? Doesn't sound that hard to me period or he could just give them money and make them with highway funds like they usually do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look dumb ass, Neither the President or the Congress have AUTHORITY to do anything in State and local law enforcement. They can give grants but they can not dictate policy or how the police power works. Learn the damn Government and its responsibilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Karamba, you are totally full of crap LOL Democrats would do it and Republicans would be made to do it by Trump otherwise he'd cut them off if that's what he wanted which he doesn't . He wants divisiveness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut what off, funding to the city? He is doing that....and you guys bitch about it.....talk about full of shit...you guys have silos full of it.
Click to expand...

He just does it to be divisive. No reform or anything like that, he just cuts off money to the people who don't like him. Worst president ever a disgrace.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Dumb ass.  





> In the *United States*, state *police* power comes from the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which gives states the rights and *powers* "not delegated to the *United States*." States are thus granted the power to establish and enforce laws protecting the welfare, safety, and health of the public.






> The federalized system of *government* in the *United States* limits the influence Congress can *have* over state and local *law enforcement* policies. The *U.S.* Constitution established a federal *government* of limited *powers*. A general *police* power *is* not among them. That *authority is* largely reserved for the states.Jun 1, 2020





			https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10572.pdf
		




> Limits of Congressional AuthorityThe federalized system of government in the United Stateslimits the influence Congress can have over state and local law enforcement policies





> Congress may spend for thegeneral welfare and thereby encourage statesto take or refrain from various activities. In doing so, however,the encouraged state action must relate to the purpose for which federal funds are spent. Moreover, state action maybe encouraged,not commandeered orcompelled. Commandeering and compulsion are also beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause, which otherwise empowers Congress to regulate the flow, instrumentalities, and substantial impacts of interstate and foreign commerce.


----------



## francoHFW

RetiredGySgt said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> several Democratic Mayors have said the police have sometimes been uncooperative. it's like that precinct in Seattle that was burned. What a mess they could end immediately if Trump would just order body cameras everywhere. For example. He is such a disaster
> 
> 
> Why do trumpers hate liberals? Because they believe hundreds of scandals and conspiracies about Democrats for 25-30 years thanks GOP propaganda machine. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or even indicted or even suspected by law enforcement? You are a disgrace too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does Trump have to do with local police getting cameras? Do you know how this country works? Oh wait you're a lefty so no......in the USSR they would just handle it...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a constitutional scholar now? Executive order? Doesn't sound that hard to me period or he could just give them money and make them with highway funds like they usually do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look dumb ass, Neither the President or the Congress have AUTHORITY to do anything in State and local law enforcement. They can give grants but they can not dictate policy or how the police power works. Learn the damn Government and its responsibilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Karamba, you are totally full of crap LOL Democrats would do it and Republicans would be made to do it by Trump otherwise he'd cut them off if that's what he wanted which he doesn't . He wants divisiveness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Federal Government does NOT fund State or local law enforcement, there are some grants to allow the cops to buy gear but it is not needed or required. it is just a freebie to militarize the police.
Click to expand...

The national Republicans have all kinds of leverage with highway funds and infrastructure projects you name it wake up and smell the coffee.... National Republicans by which I mean Trump.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

francoHFW said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> several Democratic Mayors have said the police have sometimes been uncooperative. it's like that precinct in Seattle that was burned. What a mess they could end immediately if Trump would just order body cameras everywhere. For example. He is such a disaster
> 
> 
> Why do trumpers hate liberals? Because they believe hundreds of scandals and conspiracies about Democrats for 25-30 years thanks GOP propaganda machine. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or even indicted or even suspected by law enforcement? You are a disgrace too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does Trump have to do with local police getting cameras? Do you know how this country works? Oh wait you're a lefty so no......in the USSR they would just handle it...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a constitutional scholar now? Executive order? Doesn't sound that hard to me period or he could just give them money and make them with highway funds like they usually do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look dumb ass, Neither the President or the Congress have AUTHORITY to do anything in State and local law enforcement. They can give grants but they can not dictate policy or how the police power works. Learn the damn Government and its responsibilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Karamba, you are totally full of crap LOL Democrats would do it and Republicans would be made to do it by Trump otherwise he'd cut them off if that's what he wanted which he doesn't . He wants divisiveness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Federal Government does NOT fund State or local law enforcement, there are some grants to allow the cops to buy gear but it is not needed or required. it is just a freebie to militarize the police.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The national Republicans have all kinds of leverage with highway funds and infrastructure projects you name it wake up and smell the coffee.... National Republicans by which I mean Trump.
Click to expand...

LOL so Now since you can not show any shred of authority or power to compel a State or Local Government to do anything regarding state and local law enforcement you claim the Government can threaten to withhold other funds to compel them... Ya try that and see what the Courts rule.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the *United States*, state *police* power comes from the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which gives states the rights and *powers* "not delegated to the *United States*." States are thus granted the power to establish and enforce laws protecting the welfare, safety, and health of the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federalized system of *government* in the *United States* limits the influence Congress can *have* over state and local *law enforcement* policies. The *U.S.* Constitution established a federal *government* of limited *powers*. A general *police* power *is* not among them. That *authority is* largely reserved for the states.Jun 1, 2020
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10572.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Limits of Congressional AuthorityThe federalized system of government in the United Stateslimits the influence Congress can have over state and local law enforcement policies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress may spend for thegeneral welfare and thereby encourage statesto take or refrain from various activities. In doing so, however,the encouraged state action must relate to the purpose for which federal funds are spent. Moreover, state action maybe encouraged,not commandeered orcompelled. Commandeering and compulsion are also beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause, which otherwise empowers Congress to regulate the flow, instrumentalities, and substantial impacts of interstate and foreign commerce.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Franco Disagreed with this post, a post with which LINKS directly to the Congress of the US and states the law and the facts.


----------



## francoHFW

RetiredGySgt said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the *United States*, state *police* power comes from the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which gives states the rights and *powers* "not delegated to the *United States*." States are thus granted the power to establish and enforce laws protecting the welfare, safety, and health of the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federalized system of *government* in the *United States* limits the influence Congress can *have* over state and local *law enforcement* policies. The *U.S.* Constitution established a federal *government* of limited *powers*. A general *police* power *is* not among them. That *authority is* largely reserved for the states.Jun 1, 2020
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10572.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Limits of Congressional AuthorityThe federalized system of government in the United Stateslimits the influence Congress can have over state and local law enforcement policies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress may spend for thegeneral welfare and thereby encourage statesto take or refrain from various activities. In doing so, however,the encouraged state action must relate to the purpose for which federal funds are spent. Moreover, state action maybe encouraged,not commandeered orcompelled. Commandeering and compulsion are also beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause, which otherwise empowers Congress to regulate the flow, instrumentalities, and substantial impacts of interstate and foreign commerce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Franco Disagreed with this post, a post with which LINKS directly to the Congress of the US and states the law and the facts.
Click to expand...

You know the definitions but not how the government actually works. Trump could tell Republican Mayors and governors what to do and they would do it. Everybody just needs some money.... no sacrifice is too great to save the rich from paying their Fair share.


----------



## westwall

francoHFW said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> several Democratic Mayors have said the police have sometimes been uncooperative. it's like that precinct in Seattle that was burned. What a mess they could end immediately if Trump would just order body cameras everywhere. For example. He is such a disaster
> 
> 
> Why do trumpers hate liberals? Because they believe hundreds of scandals and conspiracies about Democrats for 25-30 years thanks GOP propaganda machine. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or even indicted or even suspected by law enforcement? You are a disgrace too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does Trump have to do with local police getting cameras? Do you know how this country works? Oh wait you're a lefty so no......in the USSR they would just handle it...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a constitutional scholar now? Executive order? Doesn't sound that hard to me period or he could just give them money and make them with highway funds like they usually do.
Click to expand...







You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to know that only an autocrat can do what you just said Trump should do.

You moronic little hater dupe.


----------



## buckeye45_73

francoHFW said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poster was not clear in that the 'people' he is among are (American and maybe foreign? trolls) conservatives. *And while I have other replies in this thread hate today is a conservative value.* Huh, you say, think about it for a moment, conservatives hate change, it hates progress, it hates openness. OK I admit hate is a bit harsh but conservatism is reactionary and not open or tolerant as liberal or more open minded people are. Is this just American conservatism one must ask?
> 
> *Don't believe it? *Do this look at images conservatives have created of our last president or Hillary Clinton. Mixed with their hatred is a deep misogyny. I won't even mention what they think of Michelle Obama. Consider their hatred of LGBTQ or whatever political correctness was or is in their minds?
> 
> *Don't believe still, do this look at Trump's appeal. *Mexicans were rapists, easy to hate rapists isn't it. Doesn't matter really for conservatives, difference is something to be hated. Trump is a stupid man, but he knows enough how to play the game. His base is white supremacists, racists, gun huggers, and the uneducated or should I say educated in divisive reactionary politics.  The wealthy think tanks and their educational programs support the rich and keep the base looking in wrong direction. This started as far back as the New Deal. Read 'Invisible Hands' by Kim Phillips-Fein if you doubt.
> 
> *Is conservative hatred consistent, of course not* as the Wallace quote below notes. They claim religion and Christianity, but this is meaningless as caged children or hungry children or sick children don't count in their religion. Trump has hurt Americans and kept none of his promises, but it doesn't matter as his base has been taught well, it is socialists and progressives and liberals who kept them from their fair share. You think they'll ever wake up. See 'I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump...' by Jonna Ivin below.
> 
> Consider too the amorality of the republican, aka conservative party, when it comes to their words or even science. Today reality is not what the WHO or the CDC or HHS know about health or the well being of Americans, it is instead an opposition and a deadly opposition to science that has led to over two hundred thousand American deaths. Do the conservatives care? Lindsey Graham and others are soulless, moralless tools today, the party is led by hate of the other under Trump. There is a total absence of good old American 'can do' values. Imagine too another SCOTUS tool?  Now they too follow. Kinda obvious if you are awake. Again see 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser.
> 
> 
> *'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
> 
> 
> Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanprogress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?  And Ivin's history. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polaris.gseis.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
> 
> 
> From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
> 
> 
> 
> www.stirjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nor is kindness, in and of itself, evidence of the presence of good. I’m sure there were people who would have gladly attended or even facilitated the lynching of my ancestors just as they would have politely brought a cherry pie to a neighbor. In this country ugliness and politeness are in no way incompatible." Carvell Wallace
> 
> 
> "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity."  Simone Weil
> 
> 
> 
> HAte? no hate is a leftwing value, they attack people, they shout at them.
> Conservatives do not oppose progress and change...ironically it's the left that hates that.
> The Unibomber was a lefty that lived in squalid conditions because he didn't like modern amenities like electricity. And that's becasue the left teaches people that it's bad......it pollutes the environment....
> then it's do hyrdo...but it kills fish
> then wind...but it's ugly and kills birds
> then nuclear...too dangerous
> then solar....oops it's not efficient enough
> 
> The left wanted to rush people into super expenseive light bulbs....due to environmental concerns.....people were like fuck no, I cant afford it.....
> 
> This is one of the reasons the left is loved by rich people who can afford that shit...and why the working class doesn't buy in, because they can't afford it.
> 
> 
> Now rioting is hate and that is all left all the time......conservatives don't shout at pols in public places, they dont go pissing off people having dinner forcing them to raise a fist...again all left...
> 
> You need to learn what hate is.......it's not political, but it is being shown mainly by the left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't conflate protesters and gangsters and assholes. Brainwashed functional moron. And yet the only actual spike in violence is against blacks Jews gays Muslims and now Asians by you know who period and the attacks double when Trump has a rally . A disgrace. and we have a problem with cops who want to make Democrat Mayors look bad and white supremacists Nazis who want to make protesters look bad.... Arrest any criminals end of story. Trump could make body cameras the law and end all this but he's got to be a s******* about everything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, omg this is priceless......the cops want to make democrat mayors look bad? can you said Paranoid delusional? Wow, this is nuts.....where are all of these white supremacist? They don't exist........there are probably more NFL players than white supremacist......I'm a conservative republican in the south....I have never been or heard about an actual Klan rally...........you would think based on the left's idea that they would ask me to join........never seen any of it.....don't know anyone that has.......where are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If leftists believe they exist, that's good enough for them; reason enough to riot/burn/loot/attack. This shit has gone too far. You can put up with an annoying dog for a while, but when a dog becomes rabid....well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, you would think they would be here in Memphis starting all kinds of shit, but nope......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> several Democratic Mayors have said the police have sometimes been uncooperative. it's like that precinct in Seattle that was burned. What a mess they could end immediately if Trump would just order body cameras everywhere. For example. He is such a disaster
> 
> 
> Why do trumpers hate liberals? Because they believe hundreds of scandals and conspiracies about Democrats for 25-30 years thanks GOP propaganda machine. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or even indicted or even suspected by law enforcement? You are a disgrace too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does Trump have to do with local police getting cameras? Do you know how this country works? Oh wait you're a lefty so no......in the USSR they would just handle it...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a constitutional scholar now? Executive order? Doesn't sound that hard to me period or he could just give them money and make them with highway funds like they usually do.
Click to expand...

Wait, an executive order? You do know that Trump can't just roll into a state and takeover? Now wonder talking with you is like talking to a 5 year old....it's just so simple isn't it? The states have alot of power, the feds cant just roll them .


----------



## bluzman61

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


Because they're STUPID?  THAT would be MY guess.


----------



## buckeye45_73

Saigon said:


> The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.
> 
> The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.
> 
> I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.
> 
> Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.
> 
> Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.
> 
> And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?
> 
> The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.
> 
> If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.


Yes they were, because they increased the power of the govt and were horrific in terms of our rights...

Wilson re-segregated the DC bureaucracy....I'd call that horrible
He screen Birth of a Nation in the White House......if you know what the film is about, you'd never mention Wilson as successful and good

FDR
Was horrible, he did alot of govt expansion and did nothing to help people.....the New Deal was a disaster. He wanted to pack the court, the democrats (he had super majorities) said fuck no.

JFK was pretty decent.....he lower taxes and worked with the republicans 

Truman....he was good, he nuked Japan, desegregated the military


But the overall effect of all of those were the increase of the power of govt, not good at all......for the average citizen


----------

